Speaker 1: What's up, everyone, and welcome to another episode of the
Speaker 1: Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're picking right back up
Speaker 1: where we left off talking about Jeffrey Epstein and the
Speaker 1: failed investigation into his enterprise. Money laundering should have likewise
Speaker 1: been investigated as a possible component rather than rhetorically declared
Speaker 1: or dismissed from AFAR. To prove criminal money laundering, prosecutors
Speaker 1: must establish statutory elements concerning criminal proceeds and the purpose
Speaker 1: or designed of particular transactions. That's a meaningful evidentiary requirement,
Speaker 1: not a technicality. But Epstein's operation involved cash payments, shell
Speaker 1: like entities, property structures, large transfers, complex tax arrangements, foreign accounts,
Speaker 1: professional money managers, and repeated payments to people in his orbit.
Speaker 1: Those facts demanded forensic investigation to determine which transactions, if any,
Speaker 1: involve criminal proceeds or can see a racketeering investigation could
Speaker 1: have then incorporated provable laundering predicates while excluding innocent or
Speaker 1: merely eccentric financial activity. That's what the prosecutors were supposed
Speaker 1: to do. What they're not supposed to do is avoid
Speaker 1: asking the questions because the answers might broaden the case
Speaker 1: obstruction presented another obvious avenue. Epstein confronted police investigations, civil litigation,
Speaker 1: victim complaints, media scrutiny, registration requirements, and eventually renewed federal
Speaker 1: investigation over many years. A competent enterprise investigation would ask
Speaker 1: who contacted witnesses, who arranged payments, who participated in non
Speaker 1: disclosure efforts, who handled incriminating records, who coordinated public narratives,
Speaker 1: and who attempted to discourage cooperation. It would distinguish lawful
Speaker 1: defense work from corrupt obstruction because aggressive lawyers are entitled
Speaker 1: to defend clients without becoming conspirators, but the existence of
Speaker 1: legitimate advocacy does not immunize independent acts of witness tampering, evidence, destruction, bribery,
Speaker 1: false statements, or corrupt concealment if such jacks occurred. RICO
Speaker 1: is particularly useful precisely because obstruction undertaken to preserve an
Speaker 1: enterprise can become part of the racketeering pattern. Nexium prosecutors
Speaker 1: understood that principle and charged obstruction related activity as part
Speaker 1: of the organization's criminal story. Epstein's prosecutors old the public
Speaker 1: the same level of curiosity now Diddy provides a more
Speaker 1: recent comparison, and an important one because it shows how
Speaker 1: aggressively SDNY itself was willing to employ RICO in a
Speaker 1: sexual misconduct prosecution. In twenty twenty four, federal prosecutors charged
Speaker 1: Calms with racketeering, conspiracy, sex trafficking, and transportation for prostitution.
Speaker 1: The indictment alleged an enterprise involving business entities, security personnel,
Speaker 1: householdstaf assistance and others who activities supposedly further crimes, including trafficking,
Speaker 1: force labor, kidnapping, arson, bribery, and obstruction. The government therefore
Speaker 1: had no philosophical objection to characterizing a wealthy celebrities, business
Speaker 1: and personal infrastructure as a possible criminal enterprise. It investigated
Speaker 1: the people, resources, and institutions surrounding the principle. It aggregated
Speaker 1: different categories of alleged criminal activity into an overarching racketeering theory.
Speaker 1: It placed organizational conduct before a jury rather than artificially
Speaker 1: reducing the matter to isolated encounters. That's precisely the prosecutorial
Speaker 1: ambition missing from the Epstein case, and I don't think
Speaker 1: that the comparison can be waved away as though the
Speaker 1: underlying legal tool was somehow unavailable and listen. The Combs
Speaker 1: verdict does not weaken the Epstein reco argument nearly as
Speaker 1: much as defenders of DOJ might imagine. The jury acquitted
Speaker 1: Columns of racketeering, conspiracy, and sex trafficking while convicting him
Speaker 1: of two Man Act transportation offenses, and he was later
Speaker 1: sentenced on those convictions. That result proves that RICO is difficult,
Speaker 1: not that prosecutors should refuse to use it when the
Speaker 1: facts warrant it. Prosecutors are supposed to bring serious charges
Speaker 1: they believe they can prove, not only charges guaranteed to
Speaker 1: produce convictions. The Coms government put its enterprise theory before
Speaker 1: jurors and accepted the verdict. Epstein's victims were never given
Speaker 1: that opportunity. No Epstein racketeering trial allowed a jury to
Speaker 1: hear the organizational case and decide whether the enterprise had
Speaker 1: been proven. And I think when you compare the two cases,
Speaker 1: it cuts against the DOJ's Epstein record rather than rescuing it.
Speaker 1: And I think the difference becomes starker when prosecutorial risk
Speaker 1: is considered. The government was willing to risk a RICO
Speaker 1: acquittal against Colmbs. It was willing to build a sprawling
Speaker 1: racketeering case against Rainiery, it successfully built one against Kel.
Speaker 1: Yet with Epstein, whose publicly alleged conduct involved minors, paid recruitment,
Speaker 1: interstate trafficking, employees, associates, residences, aircraft, and decades of suspicious
Speaker 1: financial and logistical activity, prosecutors repeatedly chose a much more
Speaker 1: narrow path. Now, that's not proof of a secret directive
Speaker 1: from Washington to protect powerful people, but it's damn close.
Speaker 1: What it is, though, is more than enough to justify
Speaker 1: suspicion about institutional priorities. Prosecutorial discretion deserves respect only when
Speaker 1: prosecutors are willing to explain how they used it. When
Speaker 1: discretion repeatedly produces leniency, secrecy, immunity, and a constricted defendant
Speaker 1: pool around an extraordinarily connected offender, skepticism becomes a civic obligation,
Speaker 1: and the argument that Epstein's employees might not have known
Speaker 1: what was happening is also a reason to investigate, not
Speaker 1: a reason to abandon the enterprise theory. Of course, some
Speaker 1: employees may have been innocent. Some may have observed troubling
Speaker 1: behavior without knowing enough to satisfy criminal men's rea. Some
Speaker 1: may have performed entirely legitimate work. Others, however, may have
Speaker 1: possessed intimate knowledge of ages, schedules, cash payments, repeated recruitment,
Speaker 1: travel complaints, or efforts at concealment. Rico provides a framework
Speaker 1: for separating those groups because criminal liability depends on knowing participation,
Speaker 1: not proximity, and the government routinely makes those distinctions in
Speaker 1: mafia cases, gang cases, corruption cases, trafficking cases, and fraud cases.
Speaker 1: Pretending the problem was impossibly complicated only when the enterprise
Speaker 1: belonged to Epstein insults the public's intelligence. Now the same
Speaker 1: principle applies to Epstein's family's friends and associates. A photograph
Speaker 1: with Epstein was not a RICO predicate, a flight on
Speaker 1: his aircraft was not proof of trafficking. Attendance at a
Speaker 1: dinner did not establish criminalgre Responsible prosecution would have required
Speaker 1: individualized evidence tying particular people to criminal conduct or knowing
Speaker 1: participation in the enterprise. But refusing guilt by association is
Speaker 1: completely different from refusing investigation by association. Powerful associates with
Speaker 1: repeated access, unusual financial dealings, documented communication, visits to relevant properties,
Speaker 1: or allegations from witnesses were obvious investigative subjects. RICO would
Speaker 1: have provided a discipline framework for determining who was merely
Speaker 1: socially connected and who, if anyone, knowingly furthered criminal objectives.
Speaker 1: And I think that distinction is where much of the
Speaker 1: official conversation around EPSTEIN becomes deliberately misleading. Authorities frequently respond
Speaker 1: to demands for accountability as though critics are asking them
Speaker 1: to prosecute every name in a contact book that is
Speaker 1: a straw man. The serious demand has always been to
Speaker 1: investigate the enterprise with the same aggression used against less
Speaker 1: politically radioactive defendants. Identify the people who had operational roles.
Speaker 1: Identify the money flows supporting recruitment and travel. Identify anyone
Speaker 1: who engaged in trafficking, obstruction, financial crime, immigration, fraud, witness tampering,
Speaker 1: or other qualifying conduct. Then prosecute those against whom admissible
Speaker 1: evidence establishes guilt, and clear the others. That's called law enforcement.
Speaker 1: RICO would have transformed the evidentary narrative presented to juries.
Speaker 1: Traditional prosecutions can fragment criminal organizations, separate offenses, defendants, dates,
Speaker 1: and jurisdictions. Racketeering allows prosecutors to demonstrate how seemingly distinct
Speaker 1: acts from part of an ongoing enterprise, and that narrative
Speaker 1: power is one of the reasons that DOJ's own guidelines
Speaker 1: recognize Rico's usefulness. Where ordinary charges do not adequately refer
Speaker 1: the nature and extent of criminal conduct, few cases illustrate
Speaker 1: that problem better than Epstein. His story has been artificially
Speaker 1: divided into Florida, New York, New Mexico, the Virgin Islands, banking, recruiting, aviation, immigration,
Speaker 1: civil settlements, and individual allegations. A real enterprise case would
Speaker 1: have forced those compartments on the one map. The absence
Speaker 1: of that map has protected confusion. Forfeiture would have been
Speaker 1: another powerful reason to explore Rico. Epstein's wealth was not
Speaker 1: merely an incidental biography detail. It enabled his mobility, secrecy, recruitment,
Speaker 1: legal defenses, property staffing, and extraordinary access. Rico's forfeiture provisions
Speaker 1: are designed to attack interests connected to criminal enterprise, rather
Speaker 1: than simply in prison individuals while leaving organizational resources untouched.
Speaker 1: DOJ's own guidance specifically identifies proportion and forfeiture as one
Speaker 1: reason Rico may be appropriate. A racketeering prosecution could have
Speaker 1: forced prosecutors to identify which assets represented enterprise interests, criminal proceeds,
Speaker 1: or property connected to racketeering activity. That would have created
Speaker 1: discovery and litigation exposing the financial anatomy of Epstein's world.
Speaker 1: It would have also prevented the public conversation from collapsing
Speaker 1: into the almost childish question of how Epstein became rich.
Speaker 1: The more important question was how his wealth was deployed
Speaker 1: to sustain crime. The federal government instead spent years treating
Speaker 1: Epstein's wealth principally as a reason he was difficult to prosecute.
Speaker 1: His lawyers were formidable, his connections were extraordinary, His resources
Speaker 1: allowed endless legal pressure. Those facts should have strengthened the
Speaker 1: government's determination, rather than weakened it. Rico was created because
Speaker 1: ordinary prosecution often fails when sophisticated criminal actors em better
Speaker 1: illegality inside durable organizations and legitimate structure. A defendant's ability
Speaker 1: to employ lawyers, bankers, assistants, companies, aircraft, and property. It's
Speaker 1: not a reason to narrow an investigation. It's a reason
Speaker 1: to investigate the organization behind those resources. The wealthier and
Speaker 1: more structurally sophisticated the defendant, the more important enterprise analysis
Speaker 1: becomes and no period illustrates institutional capitulation more clearly than
Speaker 1: the South Florida negotiation. Prosecutors had leverage victims, Investigators contemplated
Speaker 1: federal charges and the power of the United States government.
Speaker 1: Epstein had money, lead lawyers, social influence, and an obvious
Speaker 1: interest in preventing a public federal trial. The government surrendered
Speaker 1: the forum Epstein most feared. It surrendered federal charges, It
Speaker 1: surrendered leverage over potential co conspirators. It kept victims inadequately informed,
Speaker 1: and accepted an arrangement. DJ later admitted reflected poor judgment,
Speaker 1: calling that merely a questionable plea bargain minimizes what was forfeited.
Speaker 1: It was the moment an enterprise investigation could have begun
Speaker 1: and instead effectively died. All right, folks, we're gonna wrap
Speaker 1: up right here, and in the next episode, we're gonna
Speaker 1: pick up where we left off. All the information that
Speaker 1: goes with this episode can be found in the description box.