Epstein Secrets

ertain of the named Defendants, which scheme directly impacted EPSTEIN as a named defendant in the Civil Actions. 19. Miami attorney and developer, Alan Sakowitz, was quoted in a November 2009 article as saying that he had met with. ROTHSTEIN as a potential investor in August of 2009, but became suspicious.

of L.M. alleging that EPSTEIN forced the minor into "oral sex," yet L.M. testified that she never engaged in oral, anal, or vaginal EFTA00190044 Epstein I. RRA. et al. Page 20 intercourse with EPSTEIN and she had never touched his genitalia. k) Told investors, as reported in an Associated Press article,

ertain of the named Defendants, which scheme directly impacted EPSTEIN as a named defendant in the Civil Actions, 19. Miami attorney and developer, Alan Sakowitz, was quoted in a November 2009. article as saying that he had met with, ROTHSTEIN as a potential investor in August of 2009, but became suspicious.

hrough various criminal activities, including mail fraud, wire fraud and money laundering, the United States of America asserts that EFTA00193781 Epstein I. RRA, et al. Page 6 11. Based on media reports, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) press conferences and releases and the Information the massive Po

ertain of the named Defendants, which scheme directly impacted EPSTEIN as a named defendant in the Civil Actions. 19. Miami attorney and developer, Alan Sakowitz, was quoted in a November 2009 article as saying that he had met with,ROTHSTEIN as a potential investor in August.of 2009, but became suspicious. H

HSTEIN's law firm (RRA) generated revenue of $8 million in one recent year, yet his 70-lawyer law firm had a payroll of $18 million, EFTA00223277 Epstein I. RRA, et al. Page 11 prosecutors said. ROTHSTEIN, who owned half of RRA used investors' money from his Ponzi scheme to make up the shortfall, they said