DOJ-OGR-00021425.pdf

Case 22-1426, Document 77, 06/29/2023, 3536038, Page253 of 258 SA-251 Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 251 of 348 in FBI interviews of Wild and other victims, Villafaña informed CEOS Chief Oosterbaan that she anticipated the victims “would be concerned about the status of the case.” On January 31, 2008, Villafaña, the CEOS Trial Attorney, and the FBI interviewed three victims, including Wild. Prior to the interview, Wild had received the FBI’s January 10, 2008 letter stating that the case was under investigation; however, according to the case agent, Wild and two other victims had also been told by the FBI, in October 2007, that the case had been resolved. In her 2015 CVRA-case declaration, Wild stated that after receiving the FBI letter, she believed that the FBI was investigating the case, and she was not told “about any [NPA] or any potential resolution of the federal criminal investigation I was cooperating in. If I had been told of a[n NPA], I would have objected.” In Villafaña’s 2017 declaration in the CVRA litigation, Villafaña recalled interviewing Wild on January 31, 2008, along with FBI agents, and Villafaña told OPR she “asked [Wild] whether she would be willing to testify if there were a trial.” Villafaña recalled Wild responding that she “hoped Epstein would be prosecuted and that she was willing to testify.”335 After the first three victim interviews on January 31, 2008, Villafaña described for Acosta and Sloman the toll that the case had taken on two of the victims: One girl broke down sobbing so that we had to stop the interview twice . . . she said she was having nightmares about Epstein coming after her and she started to break down again so we stopped the interview. The second girl . . . was very upset about the 18 month deal she had read about in the paper.336 She said that 18 months was nothing and that she had heard that the girls could get restitution, but she would rather not get any money and have Epstein spend a significant time in jail.337 Villafaña closed the email by requesting that Acosta and Sloman attend the interviews with victims scheduled for the following day, but neither did so.338 Acosta told OPR that it “wasn’t typical”335 The FBI report of the interview did not reflect a discussion of Wild’s intentions. 336 See Dareh Gregorian, “Tycoon Perved Me at 14 - $50M Suit Hits NY Creep Over Mansion Massage,” New York Post, Jan. 25, 2008. As early as October 2007, the New York Post reported the 18-month sentence and that “the feds have agreed to drop their probe into potential federal criminal violations in exchange for the guilty plea to the new state charge.” Dan Mangan, “‘Unhappy Ending’ Plea Deal - Moneyman to Get Jail For Teen Sex Massages,” New York Post, Oct. 1, 2007. 337 Acosta told OPR, “The United States can’t unwind an agreement just because . . . some victim indicates that they don’t like it.” The CEOS Trial Attorney recalled that she did not “think that any one of these girls was interested in this prosecution going forward.” Furthermore, as previously noted, the CEOS Trial Attorney also opined that “[the victims] would have testified for us,” but the case would have required an extensive amount of “victim management,” as the girls were “deeply embarrassed” that they “were going to be called prostitutes.” 338 OPR located FBI interview reports relating to only one February 1, 2008 victim interview. Although Villafaña’s emails indicated that two additional victims were scheduled to be interviewed on February 1, 2008, OPR located no corresponding reports for those victim interviews. OPR located undated handwritten notes Villafaña 225 DOJ-OGR-00021425