Epstein Secrets

ctims identified. F2 Epstein's counsel is correct, however, in asserting that Epstein's criminal conduct first came to the attention of the FBI when the City of Palm Beach Police Department became concerned about the manner in which the Palm Beach County State Attorney's Office was handling the state prosecution. The investigation of t

Thus, the Court found that the accountant did not have a Fifth Amendment privilege and could be compelled to produce the documents. See also SEC v. Jerry T O'Brien, Inc. , 467 U.S. 735, 742 (1984) (There is no Fifth Amendment violation against the target of an investigation when a subpoena is issued to third pa

ctims identified. fi Epstein's counsel is correct, however, in asserting that Epstein's criminal conduct first came to the attention of the FBI when the City of Palm Beach Police Department became concerned about the way the Palm Beach County State Attorney's Office was handling the matter. The investigation of the Palm Beach Police De

us, the Court found that the accountant did not have a Fifth Amendment privilege and could be compelled to produce the documents. See, e.g., SEC I Jerry T O'Brien, Inc. , 467 U.S. 735, 742 (1984) (There is no Fifth Amendment violation against the target of an investigation when a subpoena is issued to third pa

ctims identified. F2 Epstein's counsel is correct, however, in asserting that Epstein's criminal conduct first came to the attention of the FBI when the City of Palm Beach Police Department became concerned about the manner in which the Palm Beach County State Attorney's Office was handling the state prosecution. The investigation of t

Thus, the Court found that the accountant did not have a Fifth Amendment privilege and could be compelled to produce the documents. See also SEC I Jerry T O'Brien, Inc. , 467 U.S. 735, 742 (1984) (There is no Fifth Amendment violation against the target of an investigation when a subpoena is issued to third pa