- Jan 7, 2003
- 42,265
- 20,158
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Unitarian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
DOJ says names of two associates Epstein wired $100K and $250K should stay secret
The Justice Department request came after NBC News asked a federal judge to unseal the names of two people Epstein paid and helped protect from prosecution.
www.nbcnews.com
The Justice Department on Friday asked a federal judge overseeing the case of deceased sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein to deny a request from NBC News to unseal the names of two associates who received large payments from him in 2018, court documents show. The Justice Department cited privacy concerns expressed by the two individuals as the reason for not making their names public...
As part of the plea agreement, Epstein secured a statement from federal prosecutors in Florida that the two individuals would not be prosecuted....
Last month, NBC News sent a letter asking U.S. District Judge Richard Berman to unseal the redacted names because Epstein is deceased, the criminal proceedings have ended, and the Justice Department said in a memo in July that there would be no additional charges filed against uncharged third parties.
Berman gave federal prosecutors until Friday to respond.
In a reply letter Friday, Jay Clayton, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, wrote, “Individual-1 and Individual-2 are uncharged third parties who have not waived their privacy interests; indeed, both Individual-1 and Individual-2 have expressly objected to the unsealing of their names and personal identifying information in the July 2019 Letter.”
Clayton said the two unnamed individuals sent letters to the U.S. attorney’s office expressing their concern but that those letters are under seal.
The judge has given NBC News until Sept. 12 to respond to the Justice Department’s request that the names remain secret.
As part of the plea agreement, Epstein secured a statement from federal prosecutors in Florida that the two individuals would not be prosecuted....
Last month, NBC News sent a letter asking U.S. District Judge Richard Berman to unseal the redacted names because Epstein is deceased, the criminal proceedings have ended, and the Justice Department said in a memo in July that there would be no additional charges filed against uncharged third parties.
Berman gave federal prosecutors until Friday to respond.
In a reply letter Friday, Jay Clayton, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, wrote, “Individual-1 and Individual-2 are uncharged third parties who have not waived their privacy interests; indeed, both Individual-1 and Individual-2 have expressly objected to the unsealing of their names and personal identifying information in the July 2019 Letter.”
Clayton said the two unnamed individuals sent letters to the U.S. attorney’s office expressing their concern but that those letters are under seal.
The judge has given NBC News until Sept. 12 to respond to the Justice Department’s request that the names remain secret.
From 2019, after Epstein's arrest:
Prosecutors wrote they had obtained financial records showing in November 2018, two days after the Herald reported on a favorable plea arrangement Epstein received years prior, Epstein wired $100,000 to someone identified as a possible co-conspirator in the case. Three days after that, he wired $250,000 to another person identified as a possible co-conspirator, prosecutors wrote.
“Neither of these payments appears to be recurring or repeating during the approximately five years of bank records presently available to the Government,” prosecutors wrote. “This course of action, and in particular its timing, suggests the defendant was attempting to further influence co-conspirators who might provide information against him in light of the recently re-emerging allegations.”
The filing does not identify who received these payments.
“Neither of these payments appears to be recurring or repeating during the approximately five years of bank records presently available to the Government,” prosecutors wrote. “This course of action, and in particular its timing, suggests the defendant was attempting to further influence co-conspirators who might provide information against him in light of the recently re-emerging allegations.”
The filing does not identify who received these payments.
I get not releasing the names of the victims who prefer not to be named, but why protect alleged perpetrators?
