Alison Moe
Snapshot
| Field | Documented information |
|---|---|
| Public identity | Alison Moe, American attorney and former federal prosecutor |
| Principal Epstein role | Assistant U.S. Attorney on the Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell prosecution teams |
| Office | Southern District of New York, Criminal Division and Public Corruption Unit |
| 2019 arrest record | Named as the AUSA contact on Epstein’s July 2 arrest warrant |
| Financial investigation | Recipient of bank productions and requester of financial database records |
| Maxwell litigation | Discovery and evidence disputes, witness examination, closing argument, posttrial work and sentencing |
| Trial role | Examined the witness using the pseudonym Jane and delivered the government’s principal closing argument |
| Supervising U.S. Attorneys | Geoffrey Berman during the 2019 Epstein prosecution, Audrey Strauss during Maxwell’s 2020 arrest and much of pretrial litigation, Damian Williams during trial and sentencing |
| Later SDNY leadership | Deputy Chief of the Criminal Division during 2022 and 2023 |
| Current professional role | Partner at Sher Tremonte, which announced her arrival in January 2024 |
| Identification caution | Her name is Alison Moe; some third-party documents misspell it Allison |
| Essential distinction | A prosecuting lawyer’s appearance in a record is not evidence that she participated in the crimes being investigated |
| Last checked | October 7, 2026 |
Alison Moe was one of the assistant U.S. attorneys assigned to the 2019 New York prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein. She continued on the Maxwell prosecution team, participating in the investigation, pretrial litigation, witness examination, closing argument and sentencing proceedings.
The released financial records document a substantial investigative role: bank lawyers sent productions to her, records custodians identified subpoenas bearing her name, and an FBI agent answered her request for financial database materials. The trial transcript supplies the complementary courtroom record. Describing her only as a name on financial correspondence would miss her direct role in presenting the government’s case to the jury.
Her current firm profile identifies her as a partner at Sher Tremonte and a former SDNY prosecutor. Moe’s documented connection to Epstein is professional and adversarial. The sources discussed here do not establish that she belonged to Epstein’s personal network or participated in his abuse.
Important Points
- Moe was a working assistant prosecutor, distinct from the U.S. Attorneys who headed the office and from the judges who made rulings.
- Epstein’s arrest warrant identifies her as the AUSA contact. Magistrate Judge Barbara Moses issued the warrant; the reproduced copy’s return section is blank.
- Bank production letters prove the transmission or stated production of records. They do not establish what Moe concluded from those records or that a bank or account holder committed a crime.
- A December 2019 FBI email records a response to Moe’s request for financial filings. One filing category is redacted and should not be reconstructed from faulty OCR.
- Signed records certifications and blank certification templates are different evidence. An uncompleted form is not proof that a custodian actually certified or produced records.
- Moe’s August 2021 submission opposed an exhaustive list of alleged co-conspirators. Nathan later required disclosure of those to whom the prosecution intended to refer at trial.
- Moe personally examined Jane and gave the government’s main closing argument. A prosecutor’s question or summation is advocacy, not witness testimony.
- Her participation in seeking admission of certain emails is documented alongside the judge’s decision excluding them.
- The jury convicted Maxwell on five of six tried counts. The final judgment contained three convictions, and the severed perjury charges were dismissed at sentencing.
- Later appellate credits and recycled news coverage do not establish that Moe remained an SDNY employee after her move to private practice.
Career and Professional Background
Sher Tremonte’s current biography lists Moe’s Dartmouth degree in 2009 and Columbia law degree in 2012. Before joining SDNY, she clerked for Judge Joseph F. Bianco and Judge Allyson Kay Duncan and worked at the New York City Law Department. The firm records more than seven years of service as an assistant U.S. attorney, including work in the Public Corruption Unit.
Her portfolio included fraud, bribery, money laundering and related investigations. The firm’s January 2024 arrival announcement identified the Epstein and Maxwell prosecutions among her major matters and also described her work on the We Build the Wall fundraising prosecution. Those are career credits, not a basis for inferring links among unrelated defendants.
Moe served as Deputy Chief of SDNY’s Criminal Division during 2022 and 2023. That position involved supervision of prosecutors across multiple units. It was different from being Deputy U.S. Attorney, the office-wide leadership position previously held by Audrey Strauss. The similarity of the titles should not collapse the two roles.
By January 2024 she had joined Sher Tremonte as a partner. Her current practice concerns enforcement actions, investigations, litigation and trials. These facts establish that historical filings referring to her as an AUSA describe a past position.
Epstein’s Warrant and the 2019 Prosecution
The arrest warrant in EFTA01301626, available as a one-page PDF reproduction, is dated July 2, 2019. It identifies Epstein as the defendant in case 19 Cr. 490 and lists Moe in the AUSA contact field. It cites the trafficking and conspiracy offenses charged in the indictment and bears Magistrate Judge Barbara Moses’s signature.
The warrant’s return section is uncompleted in this copy. That permits a narrow statement about the reproduced form, not a conclusion that no executed return ever existed or that Epstein was never lawfully arrested. The July 2019 charging announcement separately identifies the prosecution and names Rossmiller, Moe and Comey as the case team under U.S. Attorney Geoffrey Berman.
The July 17, 2019 government letter, Document 30 in Epstein’s case, carries Moe’s electronic signature. It responded to the defense’s account of Epstein’s foreign passport by pointing to entry and exit stamps and asking about his citizenship or residency status. The defense’s next-day reply disputed the implication that the stamps showed Epstein’s use, saying the passport had been given to him and that the stamps predated his receipt of it.
These submissions were part of the bail dispute. They document competing positions rather than a trial determination about the passport’s history. Epstein died before the federal charges were tried, so no New York federal guilty verdict resulted from this prosecution.
Bank Productions and the Financial Investigation
WilmerHale’s November 23, 2021 letter to Moe was sent on behalf of JPMorgan Chase. The three-page reproduction identifies earlier subpoenas dated August 11, August 16, September 3 and October 9, 2019, and responds to a further request by Moe on November 22, 2021.
The letter describes the November 23 production as account documentation for ASW Holdings. It also identifies documents in the previous day’s production concerning Financial Trust Company, Epstein and Maxwell. This establishes continued record production shortly before Maxwell’s trial, more than two years after Epstein’s death. It does not establish why each particular record was sought or whether every transmitted document was admitted at trial.
JPMorgan’s lawyers requested confidential treatment and invoked legal protections for business and investigative material. Those requests are the bank’s stated position. They are not, by themselves, a court finding that every assertion of confidentiality was valid or proof that Moe agreed to hide evidence improperly. Account numbers are unnecessary to explain the record and are not reproduced here.
A separate July 10, 2020 UBS letter responded to a June 29 grand jury subpoena captioned with Maxwell’s name. The primary reproduction addresses Moe and describes a password-protected production of account opening documents and statements, with Rossmiller and Comey copied. It likewise requested confidential handling.
The two banks’ letters show a lawyer managing documentary evidence in an active criminal matter. A bank’s compliance with a subpoena is not an admission that the bank committed an offense. Nor does an account’s appearance in a production establish that every transaction in it was criminal.
Moe’s Request for Financial Database Records
The December 2019 exchange in EFTA01654555 contains a request from Moe on December 2 and a reply from FBI agent Mark Lubin on December 5. Moe asked for JPMorgan filings concerning Epstein’s accounts. Lubin said he had queried the FinCEN database and obtained eighty-nine CTRs and fourteen records of another category, eight with attachments. He reported placing the files and an index on a DVD for collection.
The scanned page visibly redacts the other filing category. The OCR text misreads the boundary of one redaction and a slash as part of a word. It would be inaccurate to invent a category from those machine-generated characters or fill the redaction from assumptions about familiar bank reporting forms.
The exchange establishes a request, a search result and a stated transfer arrangement. It does not disclose the underlying reports, establish their conclusions or prove that Moe reviewed every item. The counts concern the query described in the email, not necessarily the universe of reports relating to Epstein across all institutions and periods.
Corporate Records and Certification Forms
The completed declaration in EFTA01305171 identifies an August 7, 2019 grand jury subpoena signed by Moe. The one-page image was executed on August 13 by the director of Corporations and Trademarks in the U.S. Virgin Islands lieutenant governor’s office. It certifies the regular business-records basis for the accompanying material under the federal evidence rules.
That executed declaration is different from the uncompleted form in EFTA01659377. The latter packet’s fourth page contains a printed recital naming Moe but leaves the custodian, execution date, signature and business fields blank. The packet concerns the New York Department of State’s Division of Corporations. The form is evidence of what recipients were asked to certify, not proof of an executed certification.
The Delaware packet EFTA01659286 contains another blank certification form, this time reciting an August 9 subpoena. Treating all these sheets as completed certifications would exaggerate the evidentiary record. Likewise, the appearance of a corporate registry does not establish that the registry was suspected of wrongdoing.
Taken together, the documents show prosecutors seeking institutional records and preparing to authenticate business material. They do not reveal every investigative inference drawn from the records. Moe’s administrative and evidentiary work is documented without converting those procedural steps into unsupported conclusions about particular entities.
Maxwell’s Arrest and Discovery Litigation
The July 2, 2020 DOJ announcement again named Moe, Rossmiller and Comey as the assistant prosecutors in charge. Strauss was then the office head. The release alleged grooming and abuse involving underage girls and separately described perjury charges; the later trafficking counts were added in the March 2021 superseding indictment.
Defense counsel’s July 27 certification, Document 30 in Maxwell’s case, confirms that counsel had conferred with Moe, Rossmiller and Comey about a protective order. It said the parties had agreed on most provisions but disagreed on two remaining issues. This is a concrete record of Moe’s involvement in discovery negotiations, although it presents defense counsel’s account of the dispute.
A more consequential disagreement appears in the August 18, 2021 prosecution letter, Document 320, filed with Moe’s electronic signature and her colleagues’ names. The government opposed being required to supply an exhaustive list of uncharged co-conspirators. It argued that discovery and advance production of statements and exhibits would permit adequate trial preparation without restricting the prosecution’s proof through a bill of particulars.
Nathan’s September 3 order, Document 335, rejected the government’s objection as late and its justification as unpersuasive. She required disclosure to the defense of the unnamed alleged co-conspirators to whom the prosecution would refer at trial, and ordered disclosure of intended co-conspirator statements by October 11. This was an actual limit imposed on the prosecution’s preferred approach.
The dispute concerned disclosure to Maxwell for trial preparation. It was not an order requiring public release of every person named in investigative material. It should not be converted into a claim that Moe concealed a proven list of criminal clients or that everyone considered an alleged co-conspirator was convicted.
Arguing About What the Jury Could Hear
The November 15 pretrial transcript records Moe advocating admission of emails discussed in the government’s October evidence notice. In the exchange on pages 55 through 57, Nathan pressed her on the relationship between those messages and the charged conduct, including whether the government could show the women discussed were below the age of consent.
Moe argued that the material could bear on Maxwell’s intent and knowledge. Nathan rejected the proposed use of the seven exhibits, finding the connection to the charged crimes insufficient and the danger of jury confusion greater than the asserted probative value. This documents a litigated disagreement in which the government did not prevail.
The episode also establishes who actually spoke. Williams’s name appeared as U.S. Attorney on the office’s notice, but Moe argued the point in court and Nathan ruled. A responsible account preserves those differences rather than assigning every decision to whichever senior name appears on a cover page.
Examining Jane and Protecting Her Identity
The November 30, 2021 trial transcript, Document 743, records Moe beginning the direct examination of Jane at PDF page 158, printed transcript page 286. Before the questions began, she confirmed the operation of the court’s restrictions on depicting the witness’s likeness. The witness testified under a pseudonym to protect her privacy.
Moe elicited Jane’s account of meeting Epstein and Maxwell, the development of the relationship, alleged abuse and travel, and her reasons for delayed disclosure. Jane’s answers were evidence for the jury to evaluate; Moe’s questions were the means of presenting it. Defense counsel then had the opportunity to test the account through cross-examination.
The transcript also shows attention to a possible financial-interest argument. At PDF page 229, printed page 361, Moe asked whether Jane understood the verdict would affect an earlier compensation award and whether she had a financial stake in the outcome. Nathan instructed jurors that the answer concerned the witness’s understanding and was not a legal instruction.
This exchange illustrates a specific aspect of Moe’s trial work: anticipating a credibility issue while remaining subject to evidentiary limits. It does not justify revealing Jane’s identity or retelling details that are unnecessary to explain the prosecution. The public record deliberately preserves the pseudonym.
The December 20 Closing Argument
Document 767 contains the December 20, 2021 closing proceedings. The transcript was filed in August 2022, which should not be mistaken for the date on which Moe spoke. Her principal summation began by setting out an eight-part argument for why the evidence established Maxwell’s knowing participation.
Moe described Maxwell as central to the alleged scheme and argued that her presence and conduct made Epstein’s approaches to girls appear more trustworthy. She connected witness accounts with photographs, flight records, message records and other exhibits. She then walked through the elements of the charges and responded to the defense’s attacks on memory, motive and credibility.
The transcript’s page 62 also records her interstate-commerce argument, including reference to a massage table manufactured in California. This was an argument about one element of the trafficking count, not a claim that the existence of an interstate product alone proved the entire crime. The jury still had to decide all required elements under the judge’s instructions.
Moe’s summation was followed by the defense’s argument and the government’s rebuttal, delivered by Comey. Closing arguments organize a party’s interpretation of admitted evidence. They are not additional witness testimony, and their forceful wording should remain attributed to the advocate rather than presented as an independent source of facts.
Verdict, Sentencing and Subsequent Litigation
The December 29 verdict came during Williams’s leadership of SDNY. Maxwell was found guilty on five of the six tried counts and acquitted on one. The April 29, 2022 opinion subsequently concluded that two conspiracy counts overlapped with another and therefore would not receive separate judgments. The final judgment contained convictions on Counts Three, Four and Six.
Moe was listed on the government’s posttrial memorandum and sentencing submission. The latter requested thirty to fifty-five years. The actual June 28, 2022 sentencing transcript records her courtroom participation and Nathan’s imposition of twenty years, with five years of supervised release and a $750,000 fine.
At transcript page 99, Moe moved to dismiss the two severed perjury counts and the underlying indictments. Nathan granted the request. This is a specifically attributable act by Moe, unlike a general inference from her name appearing in a collective counsel list. The motion did not erase the trafficking and transportation convictions on which judgment was imposed.
The September 17, 2024 Second Circuit opinion lists Moe among government counsel on the brief and affirms the judgment. Andrew Rohrbach is identified as the arguing prosecutor. The counsel credit records work on the appeal; in light of Moe’s January 2024 move to Sher Tremonte, it should not be used to imply that she remained an SDNY employee when the opinion issued.
The Supreme Court denied review in October 2025. Engelmayer’s August 25, 2026 order denied Maxwell’s later Section 2255 petition. These update the case history without assigning Moe a role in proceedings conducted after her departure. Any subsequent appeal from the 2026 order remains outside the verified scope here.
Evidence Appearances
| Record | Date and location | Documented role | Evidentiary limit |
|---|---|---|---|
| EFTA01301626 | July 2, 2019; one-page warrant | Moe listed as AUSA contact | Judge issued warrant; reproduced return section is blank |
| EFTA01305171 | Subpoena August 7; declaration August 13, 2019; PDF | Executed custodian declaration identifies subpoena signed by Moe | Does not explain what every accompanying record proves |
| EFTA01659377 | Corporate records packet; page 4 | Template identifies Moe as subpoena signer | Blank form is not an executed certification |
| EFTA01654555 | December 2 and 5, 2019; email PDF | Request to FBI and response describing FinCEN search results | Redacted filing category and underlying reports remain undisclosed on this sheet |
| EFTA01597827 | July 10, 2020; UBS letter | UBS addressed account-document production to Moe | Compliance is not an admission of criminal conduct |
| EFTA01340325 | November 23, 2021; three-page letter | JPMorgan counsel described productions responding to subpoenas and Moe’s request | Does not reveal prosecutors’ conclusions or final exhibit use |
| Document 320 | August 18, 2021; DOJ-OGR-00004994 through DOJ-OGR-00004997 | Moe signed government position on identifying co-conspirators | Must be read with the contrary September 3 order, Document 335 |
| Document 743 | November 30, 2021 hearing; PDF pp.158 and 229 | Direct examination of Jane and financial-interest questions | Questions are not testimony; witness’s understanding is not law |
| Document 767 | December 20, 2021 hearing; summation includes printed pp.2842, 2844 and 2895 | Moe’s principal closing argument | Advocacy based on evidence, not new evidence itself |
| Document 737 | June 28, 2022 hearing; p.99 | Moe requested dismissal of severed perjury counts | Does not undo the three convictions in the judgment |
The table is a selected map of verified appearances. Viewer links were recovered from actual archive references and are paired with readable primary-document reproductions. EFTA release numbers, older production stamps and court docket numbers are separate identifiers; matching a document requires checking its contents, date and case.
Chronology
| Date | Event | Significance |
|---|---|---|
| 2009 and 2012 | Dartmouth undergraduate and Columbia law degrees | Professional background |
| July 2, 2019 | Epstein arrest warrant names Moe | Direct prosecutorial role before arrest |
| July 2019 | Named on Epstein prosecution team and signed passport submission | Investigation and bail litigation |
| August 2019 | Corporate records requests and executed Virgin Islands certification | Evidence collection after indictment |
| December 2019 | Requested financial filings from FBI | Financial investigation continued after Epstein’s death |
| July 2, 2020 | Named on Maxwell prosecution team | Continued work under Strauss |
| July 10 and 27, 2020 | UBS production and defense certification of discovery discussions | Documentary evidence and protective-order negotiations |
| August 18 and September 3, 2021 | Government disclosure objection followed by adverse court order | Prosecution advocacy and judicial control |
| November 2021 | Further bank production and pretrial evidence rulings | Preparation immediately before trial |
| November 30, 2021 | Examined Jane | Direct witness presentation |
| December 20, 2021 | Delivered principal prosecution closing | Summarized government theory and evidence |
| December 29, 2021 | Maxwell verdict | Five guilty findings and one acquittal |
| June 28, 2022 | Appeared at sentencing and moved to dismiss perjury counts | Posttrial role specifically recorded |
| 2022 and 2023 | Deputy Chief of Criminal Division | Broader SDNY supervisory position |
| January 2024 | Joined Sher Tremonte | Private practice transition |
| September 17, 2024 | Named on brief in appellate opinion | Historical appeal credit, not proof of current government employment |
Related Articles
Source List
- Sher Tremonte current profile and January 2024 joining announcement.
- DOJ Epstein charging announcement and Maxwell charging announcement.
- Epstein warrant, government passport submission and defense reply.
- JPMorgan production letter, UBS production letter and FBI financial-record exchange.
- Executed Virgin Islands certification, New York corporate records packet and Delaware packet.
- Government disclosure letter, Document 320, court order, Document 335 and pretrial transcript, Document 465.
- November 30 trial transcript and December 20 closing transcript.
- Posttrial memorandum, April 29 opinion, sentencing memorandum and sentencing transcript.
- Second Circuit opinion, Supreme Court journal and August 2026 collateral-review opinion.
- Epstein-Data Moe research page, used to locate primary records; trial archive person index, used to locate testimony before checking the actual transcript.