EFTA02731039: The June 2019 Prosecution Memorandum Against Jeffrey Epstein
Snapshot
| Field | Details |
|---|---|
| Record | Southern District of New York prosecution memorandum in United States v. Jeffrey Epstein |
| Evidence | EFTA02731039, a 30 page document through EFTA02731068 |
| Earlier Bates range printed on the pages | EFTA00022556 through EFTA00022585 |
| Date | June 11, 2019 |
| Status at the time | Internal request for authorization before indictment or arrest |
| Charges proposed | Sex trafficking of children under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1591 and 2, and conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 371 |
| Conduct addressed | Approximately 2002 through 2005, primarily Manhattan and Palm Beach |
| Evidence described | Survivor interviews, message pads, phone records, flight logs, a cash deposit notebook, earlier FBI interviews, and physical evidence |
| Important limits | Extensive redactions; the referenced draft indictment is absent from this 30 page copy; Epstein died before trial |
| Later case | United States v. Epstein, No. 19 Cr. 490, Southern District of New York |
The June 11, 2019 memorandum, EFTA02731039, is the internal case for charging Jeffrey Epstein in New York. Prosecutors described paid sexual abuse of minors, a referral system in which some girls were paid to bring other girls, and scheduling that linked his Manhattan and Palm Beach residences. They also explained why they believed the 2007 Florida nonprosecution agreement did not bind their office. This was a request to bring charges, not a conviction or a complete record of every person investigated.
What This Document Is
The cover and opening pages identify the document as privileged attorney work product prepared within the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York. It requests approval to charge Epstein with one substantive child sex trafficking count and one conspiracy count. The proposed indictment mentioned on its first page is not part of the released 30 page memorandum. The public PDF carries both the EFTA02731039 to EFTA02731068 sequence and an earlier EFTA00022556 to EFTA00022585 sequence printed on its pages.
The official DOJ Data Set 12 index lists the released file. Redactions cover survivor details, portions of evidentiary and legal analysis, alleged associates, and much of the anticipated defenses section. A redacted name cannot safely be supplied from proximity, assumptions about a job, or a separate article. The witnesses designated Victim 1 through Victim 4 remain anonymous here.
Page 1 says the new SDNY investigation began in late 2018. Prosecutors believed the alleged conduct might reach back into the 1990s, but the survivors they had interviewed for this proposal described abuse in the charged 2002 to 2005 period. The memo says the earlier Palm Beach and federal Florida investigations involved interviews with approximately 35 victims, a residential search, and analysis of telephone and flight records. Those figures describe what prosecutors understood about the prior investigation, not a final count of everyone Epstein harmed.
The Recruitment and Payment System
Pages 2 through 8 of EFTA02731039 describe girls invited to give massages at Epstein’s homes and paid in cash after sexual conduct. Prosecutors said Epstein also paid some girls for bringing others. In the principal New York account, $300 went to the recruited girl and $300 to the girl who brought her. In Florida, accounts described $200 massage payments and additional money for recruitment. These amounts belong to particular accounts in the memo and should not be imposed on every appointment in the broader case.
The referral system complicates a simple division between victims and recruiters. The memo describes girls who were first exploited as minors and later brought other girls after Epstein offered money. Their accounts are evidence of what he directed and paid for. The record does not make every recruited girl a criminal participant or establish that every adult employee understood what happened during an appointment.
Victim 1: The New York Account
Pages 3 and 4 summarize several proffers from Victim 1. She said another teenager introduced her to paid massages when she was about 14 and living on her own. She reported many visits to Epstein’s Manhattan home from approximately 2002 to 2005, sexual contact during the massages, and $300 cash payments. She said she told Epstein she was 14. According to the memo, he asked her to bring other girls, and she estimated that she brought dozens over roughly two years. Prosecutors identified an assistant called “Leslie,” through whom she said she scheduled appointments, as Lesley Groff. That identification establishes the office’s assessment of the scheduling contact. It does not establish Groff’s knowledge of a visitor’s age or of abuse. Groff was not charged in this case.
Pages 4 and 5 explain the corroboration prosecutors had and hoped to develop. A message retrieved in a Florida trash search bore Victim 1’s first name and a New York area code. She did not recognize the number, but prosecutors connected it through other telephone records. Two people identified as Individual 1 and Individual 2 had earlier told Florida investigators about massage visits and recruitment involving Victim 1. When SDNY investigators approached them, both declined another interview at that stage and emphasized that they believed they had been 18 at the relevant time. Their earlier accounts could corroborate the referral pattern, but the memo did not treat them as statutory minor victims of those visits.
Page 4 also notes that Victim 1 described distinctive features inside Epstein’s Manhattan house. Prosecutors saw the level of detail as support for her account of spending time there. A correct property description supports presence; it does not independently prove each sexual act alleged.
Victim 2: The Florida Account
Pages 5 through 7 summarize Victim 2’s account. She recalled first visiting Epstein’s Palm Beach home at about 14, although the memo notes that in a 2007 FBI interview she estimated that she was 15 when the contact began. She described more than ten sexualized massages, $200 payments, and Epstein encouraging her to bring friends. She estimated that she brought about 20 to 30 girls over two to three years, believed most were minors, and described the group as roughly 15 to 20 years old. These are her estimates, not a verified roster of distinct people.
Page 6 records a complication relevant to Epstein’s knowledge of age: Victim 2 initially said she was 18 because a friend had told her to do so. She later believed Epstein preferred younger girls based on his responses and the girls he accepted. That belief and her description of their appearance were part of the prosecution’s evidence, while the initial false age statement was also preserved in the memo. The legal knowledge question required more than assuming that every visitor disclosed her age.
Pages 6 and 7 describe message pads recovered from Epstein’s house bearing Victim 2’s name and contact information, with messages about appointments and a friend. Prosecutors also cited calls between her and a scheduling contact whose identity is redacted in this portion of the released copy. Victim 2 recalled a call after the Florida investigation became public in which a person told her she would be taken care of if she stayed silent. The memo reports her account; the redaction does not justify assigning that statement to a named employee.
Victim 3 and the Cash Deposit Notebook
Pages 7 and 8 recount Victim 3’s approximately 20 visits to the Palm Beach residence between 2003 and 2005, with $200 payments. She remembered being 17 when visits began. Prosecutors said a notebook in which she recorded cash deposits suggested the visits might have started just after her sixteenth birthday in June 2003 and continued into early 2005. That is a comparison between her recollection and a contemporaneous record, not grounds to identify her publicly.
Page 8 compares her account of calls from an Epstein scheduling contact in New York with toll records and the aircraft log. Prosecutors pointed to three afternoon calls on September 16, 2004, followed by a JFK to West Palm Beach flight that night. They considered the timing consistent with the contact being in New York while arranging a Florida appointment. The released text redacts the contact’s name. A matching call and flight pattern supports the location and scheduling account; it does not by itself reveal the content of the calls.
Victim 3 said she brought two other 17 year old girls for appointments and was paid for doing so. The memo describes Epstein touching her and asking for additional sexual contact, which she said she refused. Her account illustrates both the referral payments and the ability of a survivor to set a limit in a particular encounter without erasing the abuse she reported.
Victim 4 and Leads Held for Later Investigation
The footnote on page 8 recounts Victim 4’s report of one $200 appointment in Palm Beach. She said Epstein attempted unwanted touching, she pushed his hands away, and the appointment ended. She estimated she was about 17, but the memo also records that in an earlier Florida interview she thought she may have been 18. Prosecutors did not conceal this inconsistency or present her as one of the three principal witnesses on whom the proposed conspiracy count was based.
Pages 8 and 9 say SDNY investigators had approached a limited group from the older Florida case. Some declined to speak before charges because of the history of the case. Prosecutors planned to contact more after the indictment became public, partly because they feared leaks while the investigation remained covert. The memo therefore captures an investigative moment, not the final size or findings of the inquiry.
Proposed Counts and the Florida Agreement
Page 9 proposes a substantive trafficking count for New York victims and a conspiracy count spanning the three principal witnesses and other girls in New York and Florida. The memo labels the substantive count “Count One” and conspiracy “Count Two.” The indictment filed in July 2019 ultimately listed conspiracy first and substantive trafficking second. Those are count numbers in two different documents, not a change in the basic two charge plan.
Pages 9 through 15 address the proposed elements of 18 U.S.C. § 1591, including recruitment or obtaining, a connection to interstate commerce, knowledge of minority, and a commercial sex act. The conspiracy proposal under § 371 required an agreement and an overt act. Large portions of the proof columns and following analysis are redacted. The publicly visible memo establishes the office’s proposed theory, but it does not reveal every item the authors placed under each element.
Pages 16 through 21 consider the 2007 nonprosecution agreement signed by the Southern District of Florida. SDNY prosecutors reasoned that its district specific language and the fact that their office was not a signatory permitted a New York prosecution. They also stressed New York conduct and survivors outside the earlier Florida investigation. The memo’s assessment is a prosecutorial position made before Epstein was charged, not a court judgment resolving every possible defense. The agreement itself should be read alongside the memo when assessing its scope.
Pages 21 through 24 turn separately to the time limits for charging child sexual abuse and sex trafficking. The public copy shows statutory developments but redacts much of the case specific application. A conclusion about a particular act’s timeliness cannot be reconstructed from the headings alone.
Other People Named and the Limits of Those References
Page 3 mentions Leslie Wexner in a short account of Epstein’s wealth and Manhattan property. It mentions Bill Clinton, Kevin Spacey, and Chris Tucker as background to a widely reported Africa trip aboard Epstein’s aircraft. These references do not accuse those people of participating in the trafficking described in the proposed counts.
Pages 3 through 4 identify Lesley Groff as the assistant prosecutors associated with Victim 1’s scheduling contact. Page 16 refers to potential coconspirators under the Florida agreement, with some details redacted. A scheduling role or appearance in an agreement is distinct from proof of an individual crime. The June 2019 memorandum asks to charge Epstein, not Groff or the background figures it names.
Plans to Investigate Other Participants
Page 15 of EFTA02731039 states that prosecutors had no cooperating defendants at the time. They hoped to approach suspected or alleged coconspirators after filing the initial indictment and to develop evidence during an overt investigation. The wording demonstrates an investigative plan, not a decision that every person suspected would be charged or would cooperate.
The separate December 19, 2019 memorandum, EFTA02731082, later reviewed possible criminal liability among associates and employees. It is a different document produced after Epstein’s death. Its conclusions should not be read back into the narrower June 11 request.
Historical Evidence, Survivor Privacy, and Financial Remedies
Pages 28 and 29 of EFTA02731039 identify historical files maintained by the DOJ Freedom of Information Act office and by the FBI in Florida as major discovery collections. Prosecutors said the earlier Florida physical evidence was still in FBI custody there and that SDNY was arranging to receive and catalog it. They planned to determine whether Palm Beach police and the Florida federal prosecutors held additional records. This describes custody and planned work in June 2019; it does not prove the material was never transferred later.
Pages 29 and 30 say the office expected to seek forfeiture and restitution, including losses tied to medical and psychological care, housing, lost income, and legal costs, subject to the relevant legal requirements. Prosecutors anticipated privacy protections in discovery and contact with victim and witness coordinators. The memo identifies at least dozens of potential victim witnesses, many not yet identified at that time. It did not award restitution or order forfeiture.
What Happened After the Memorandum
SDNY’s July 8, 2019 announcement states that Epstein was arrested on July 6 and charged with conspiracy to commit sex trafficking of minors and sex trafficking of minors. The grand jury had returned the sealed indictment on July 2. These allegations substantially matched the two subjects of the June memo, with the count order reversed from its proposed outline.
The SDNY case status page records that the court formally dismissed the indictment on August 29, 2019, after Epstein died in custody. There was no trial verdict on his 2019 charges. The dismissal followed his death and did not adjudicate the survivor accounts as false or true. Later proceedings against other people have their own charges, evidence, and outcomes.
Evidence Appearances
| Record page | Material described | What it supports and what it does not |
|---|---|---|
| EFTA02731039, p. 1 | Cover, date, request for two charges | Establishes the June 11 authorization request, not a filed indictment |
| EFTA02731040, p. 2 | Summary of recruitment and Epstein background | States prosecutors’ scope and background, not culpability of all named associates |
| EFTA02731041 to EFTA02731042, pp. 3 to 4 | Victim 1 and corroborating witnesses | Records her account and partial corroboration; underlying interviews remain distinct evidence |
| EFTA02731043 to EFTA02731044, pp. 5 to 6 | Victim 2, referral estimates, message pads | Shows a reported Florida recruitment pattern and contemporaneous contact records |
| EFTA02731045, p. 7 | Victim 3’s cash deposit notebook | Gives a possible earlier start date than her recalled age of 17 |
| EFTA02731046, p. 8 | Telephone and flight comparison; Victim 4 | Corroborates aspects of scheduling and preserves an age discrepancy |
| EFTA02731047 to EFTA02731052, pp. 9 to 14 | Proposed elements of trafficking and conspiracy | States legal theories; some proof columns are redacted |
| EFTA02731053, p. 15 | Cooperation section | No cooperating defendants then; further approaches contemplated |
| EFTA02731054 to EFTA02731058, pp. 16 to 20 | Florida agreement analysis | Explains SDNY’s position on the agreement’s geographic reach |
| EFTA02731059 to EFTA02731061, pp. 21 to 23 | Time limits analysis | Identifies statutes; application is heavily redacted |
| EFTA02731062 to EFTA02731065, pp. 24 to 27 | Anticipated defenses | The headings survive but much of the analysis does not |
| EFTA02731066 to EFTA02731068, pp. 28 to 30 | Discovery, restitution, victims, arrest | Documents plans and historical record locations, not completed remedies |
Related EpsteinWiki Pages
- Jeffrey Epstein
- Criminal Case: United States v. Jeffrey Epstein (2019)
- 2007 Nonprosecution Agreement
Questions for Further Research
- Where is the exact draft indictment referenced as an attachment to the June 11 memorandum, and what differences does it have from the filed July indictment?
- Which underlying interview reports, original message pads, and telephone returns correspond to the summaries for Victims 1 through 4?
- What records establish the transfer and eventual use of the physical evidence that was still in FBI custody in Florida in June 2019?
- Which additional survivors were contacted after the case became public, and how were their identities protected in later releases?
- Which parts of the anticipated defenses and legal analysis remain redacted, and can their substance be established from filed court papers without exposing survivors?
Sources
- EFTA02731039, SDNY prosecution memorandum dated June 11, 2019. The primary 30 page record contains survivor summaries, corroboration, proposed counts, the Florida agreement analysis, discovery planning, and proposed remedies.
- DOJ Data Set 12 release index. The official production lists the memorandum among the released documents.
- 2007 Florida nonprosecution agreement, DOJ-OGR-00000290. The underlying agreement supplies the terms that SDNY analyzed as a possible obstacle to charging Epstein.
- SDNY July 8, 2019 charging announcement. The office describes the two counts actually filed, the arrest, and its allegations at the time.
- SDNY case status page for United States v. Epstein. The official page records the August 29, 2019 dismissal following Epstein’s death.
- EFTA02731082, December 2019 SDNY memorandum. The later record reviews possible liability of associates and employees and must be distinguished from the June request to charge Epstein.