What is document EFTA00019603?

This is a heavily redacted email chain between SDNY (Southern District of New York) federal prosecutors from June 1, 2020. The emails primarily discuss staffing for an unrelated fraud investigation, but include a passing reference to ongoing Epstein-related work.

Who is mentioned in this document?

All prosecutor names are redacted. The document mentions Jeffrey Epstein and 'Rikers' in the context of ongoing investigative work, and includes a reference to Prince Andrew in the extracted entities, though the visible content only shows the Epstein/Rikers mention.

What does this document reveal about the Epstein investigation?

The document reveals that as of June 2020—nearly a year after Epstein's August 2019 death—SDNY prosecutors were still actively working on Epstein-related matters. One prosecutor noted that 'Epstein/Rikers stuff' was consuming their time and involved reading numerous memos, suggesting active internal deliberation about the case, possibly regarding potential co-conspirator charges.

What is the 'wbtw' case mentioned in the document?

The 'wbtw' case appears to be a separate fraud investigation unrelated to Epstein, involving what the prosecutors call a 'wbtw scheme' and a 'possible PPE scam' (likely related to COVID-19 protective equipment fraud, given the June 2020 date during the pandemic). The Epstein mention is incidental, as a prosecutor explains why they have limited availability.

Why does the document mention 'Rikers' in connection with Epstein?

This is notable because Jeffrey Epstein was held at the Metropolitan Correctional Center (MCC) in Manhattan, not Rikers Island. The 'Rikers' reference may indicate the prosecutor was working on related jail/detention facility issues, a broader investigation into detention conditions, or simply used shorthand for jail-related matters.

What is document EFTA00019603?

This is a heavily redacted email chain between SDNY (Southern District of New York) federal prosecutors from June 1, 2020. The emails primarily discuss staffing for an unrelated fraud investigation, but include a passing reference to ongoing Epstein-related work.

Who is mentioned in this document?

All prosecutor names are redacted. The document mentions Jeffrey Epstein and 'Rikers' in the context of ongoing investigative work, and includes a reference to Prince Andrew in the extracted entities, though the visible content only shows the Epstein/Rikers mention.

What does this document reveal about the Epstein investigation?

The document reveals that as of June 2020—nearly a year after Epstein's August 2019 death—SDNY prosecutors were still actively working on Epstein-related matters. One prosecutor noted that 'Epstein/Rikers stuff' was consuming their time and involved reading numerous memos, suggesting active internal deliberation about the case, possibly regarding potential co-conspirator charges.

What is the 'wbtw' case mentioned in the document?

The 'wbtw' case appears to be a separate fraud investigation unrelated to Epstein, involving what the prosecutors call a 'wbtw scheme' and a 'possible PPE scam' (likely related to COVID-19 protective equipment fraud, given the June 2020 date during the pandemic). The Epstein mention is incidental, as a prosecutor explains why they have limited availability.

Why does the document mention 'Rikers' in connection with Epstein?

This is notable because Jeffrey Epstein was held at the Metropolitan Correctional Center (MCC) in Manhattan, not Rikers Island. The 'Rikers' reference may indicate the prosecutor was working on related jail/detention facility issues, a broader investigation into detention conditions, or simply used shorthand for jail-related matters.

EFTA00019603 - EFTA00019604

Internal SDNY (Southern District of New York) prosecutor emails from June 2020 discussing case staffing and workload, with a brief mention of ongoing 'Epstein/Rikers stuff' taking up an attorney's time.

This is a heavily redacted internal email thread between federal prosecutors at the US Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (SDNY) from June 1, 2020. The emails discuss staffing for an unrelated case involving a 'wbtw scheme' and possible PPE scam investigation. The document's connection to Epstein is incidental—one prosecutor mentions that 'Epstein/Rikers stuff has been taking up my time' as an explanation for limited bandwidth, hoping 'that will relent a bit over the summer' or that 'someone up the chain will get tired of reading memos.' This reference to 'reading memos' aligns with known SDNY internal memos about Epstein co-conspirators that were being drafted during this period.

Key Highlights

•Reveals SDNY prosecutors were actively working on 'Epstein/Rikers stuff' in June 2020, nearly a year after Epstein's death
•Suggests ongoing memo-writing activity related to Epstein case that was occupying significant prosecutor time
•The 'Rikers' reference is notable since Epstein was held at MCC Manhattan, not Rikers—may indicate broader investigation
•Shows the Epstein investigation was consuming resources that affected other SDNY cases

Frequently Asked Questions

Books for Further Reading

Perversion of Justice: The Jeffrey Epstein Story

Julie K. Brown

Investigative journalism that broke the Epstein case open

Filthy Rich: The Jeffrey Epstein Story

James Patterson

Bestselling account of Epstein's crimes and network

Thanks to Life: A Biography of Violeta Parra

Document Information

Bates Range

EFTA00019603 - EFTA00019604

Pages

Document Content

Page 1 - EFTA00019603

From: To: "- Subject: Re: wbtw Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2020 22:39:59 +0000 (USANYS)" Great. I was just on the phone w/ about another case. Told him we could use another person and prefer M. He said he'll talk to and let us know, so that seems like a good sign. From: Sent: Monday, June 1, 2020 6:33 PM To: (USANYS) < > Subject: RE: wbtw Definitely has bandwidth, he has been telling me he is looking for work. From: (USANYS) Sent: Monday, June 1, 2020 6:29 PM To: Subject: Re: wbtw Sounds good. Any sense of bandwidth? If he's not very busy, could use that to pitch him to the chiefs. From: ann Sent: Monday, June 1, 20206:18 PM To: (USANYS) Subject: RE: wbtw Hey- That sounds good to me, thanks. I think it makes sense to discuss our theory of the case, both on the wbtw scheme and on the possible PPE scam, just to make sure everyone is on the same page as we continue reviewing. In particular, now that is openly taking a salary, we should discuss materiality—I don't think those issues are prohibitive at all, but it might be helpful to make sure everyone is attuned to those issues as we review. In terms of staffing, can we add M? I know he'd want to do it. Apologies that I haven't been working on this case since we moved to remote work—I reviewed emails before we left the office, but haven't continued since then. In terms of bandwidth, Epstein/Rikers stuff has been taking up my time, although I'm hopeful that will relent a bit over the summer (or that someone up the chain will get tired of reading memos?). More immediately, I should be able to dig into email review probably starting next weekish. Regardless, don't be shy about passing things off to me if you think of things we should be doing that I'm not spotting. From: (USANYS) < > Sent: Monday, June 1, 2020 5:01 PM To: Subject: wbtw EFTA00019603

Page 2 - EFTA00019604

hey - thought it made sense to check in before our call tomorrow. in terms of current status, i think we continue to review the email returns, schedule the new financials and dig in on this covid scheme that is doing, and probably do another warrant (either a refresh or some new accounts). is going to assign a GCer to do priv review, and I'm continuing to hassle I=. about the iCloud returns. What's your bandwidth like? I know you're probably busy with Epstein and Rikers stuff. We're getting close to doing a superseder in the Ukrainians case, but then I'm pretty free until my currently scheduled trial in September (which I bet gets moved, but who knows). I think it may make sense to add a third person to assist with email review and pushing this closer to charging. There are some people in our unit who are slow, and/or GC is actually pretty slow except for compassionate release. On the other hand, fine to wait on this if you think we should. Let me know. Thanksl Assistant United States Attorney United States Attorney's Office Southern District of New York One St. Andrew's Plaza New York, New York 10007 Tel: Cell: EFTA00019604