U.S. Attorney R. Alexander Acosta defends handling of alleged Epstein victim claims and money‑laundering charges

JAY P. LEFKOWITZ, Eso. DECEMBER 13, 2007 PAGE 5 OF 5 With respect to Ms. Miller, I contacted her attorney - who was paid for by Mr. Epstein and was directed by counsel for Mr. Epstein to demand immunity — and asked only whether he still represented Ms. Miller and if he wanted me to send the victim notification letter to him. He asked what the letter would say and I told him that the letter would be forthcoming in about a week and that I could not provide him with the terms. With respect to Ms. Miller’s status as a victim, you again want us to accept as true only facts that are beneficial to your client and to reject as false anything detrimental to him. Ms. Miller made a number of statements that are contradicted by documentary evidence and a review of her recorded statement shows her lack of credibility with respect to anumber of statements. Based upon all of the evidence collected, Ms. Miller is classified as a victim as defined by statute. Of course, that does not mean that Ms. Miller considers herself a victim or that she would seek damages from Mr. Epstein. I believe that a number of the identified victims will not seek damages, but that does not negate their legal status as victims. I hope that you now understand that your accusations against myself and the agents are unfounded. In the future, I recommend that you address your accusations to me so that I can correct any misunderstandings before you make false allegations to others in the Department. I hope that we can move forward with a professional resolution of this matter, whether that be by your client’s adherence to the contract that he signed, or by virtue of a trial. Sincerely, R. Alexander Acosta United States Attorney By: s/A. Marie Villafaria A. Marie Villafafia Assistant United States Attorney cc: — R. Alexander Acosta, U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Sloman, First Assistant U.S. Attorney You also accuse me of “broaden[ing] the scope of the investigation without any foundation for doing so by adding charges of money laundering and violations of amoney transmitting business to the investigation.” Again, I consulted with the Justice Department’s Money Laundering Section about my analysis before expanding that scope. The duty attorney agreed with my analysis. HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012581