EFTA00074744.pdf

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN ************************************* IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF ) JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, ) PROBATE NO. ST-I9-PB-80 ) Deceased. ) ) MOTION TO INTERVENE COMES NOV the Government of the United States Virgin Islands (- the Government") and hereby files this Motion to Intervene in the Petition for Probate and for Letters Testamentary filed by the Executors of the Estate ofJeffrey Epstein ("the Estate") on August 15, 2019. Pursuant to the Virgin Islands Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 24, the Government has the statutory right and authority to intervene in the Estate to protect its claims against the Estate; enforce its criminal activity lien against the Estate; and ensure that the administration of the Estate conforms to the laws of the Virgin Islands. Intervention is particularly necessary given the potential conflict of interest of the Executors in administering the Estate and, in particular, in proposing to hire and compensate "Designers" to administer a voluntary fund to compensate victims trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein. The Government's Opposition to Estate's Motion for Establishment of a Voluntary Claims Resolution is filed attached hereto as Exhibit 1. I. BACKGROUND Jeffrey Epstein was found dead on August 10, 2019, while in custody in New York for sex crimes. U.S. Virgin Islands v. Estate ofJeffrey Epstein, et at, No. ST-2020-CV-14, 7 (Super Ct. Civ. Jan. 15, 2020), Exhibit 2. On August 15, 2019. the Estate of Jeffrey Epstein ("the Estate") was created. The Executors, Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn, filed a Petition for Probate and 1 EFTA00074744 Letters Testamentary with the Probate Division of the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands on August 15, 2019. Id. 8. The Petition for Probate included Mr. Epstein's Last Will and 'Testament.' Id. Two days before his death, Mr. Epstein amended a previous trust, namely, The Jeffrey E. Epstein Trust and then created "The 1953 Trust" ("the Trust"). In addition to amending the Trust, Epstein also amended his Last Will and Testamcnt, so that all his "property, real and personal. wherever situate" went to The Trust. Id. 13-14. Executors published a Notice to Creditors on September 18, 2019, which set a six month deadline for creditors to file claims against the Estate. Ex'r Expedited Mot. at 2 (Nov. 14, 2019), Exhibit 4. On November 14, 2019, the Executors of the Estate filed an Expedited Motion for Establishment of a Voluntary Claims Resolution Program ("Epstein Fund" or "Fund"). The Motion asked this Court to - establish an independent and voluntary claims resolution program for purposes of resolving sexual abuse claims against Jeffrey E. Epstein." Id. at 1. The Motion proposes engaging Jordana Feldman, Kenneth Feinberg and Camille Biros as Program Administrators for the Epstein Fund. Id. at 6. The Executors allege, "the Program would provide all eligible claimants an opportunity to receive compensation and voluntarily resolve their claims of sexual abuse against Mr. Epstein . . . Id. The situs of the Program Administrators would be in New York. Id. at 3. On January IS, 2020, the Government of the Virgin islands filed a lawsuit against the Estate, the 1953 Trust, and numerous Epstein business affiliates and associates for violation of the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act ("CICO"). 14 V.I.C. § 600 et seq., and civil conspiracy, seeking forfeiture and divestment of assets in favor of the Government, civil penalties, damages, and other remedies. See Ex. 2. The Complaint notes that the Co-Executors of the Estate served as officers or trustees of various entities named in the Government's Complaint, including ' The Petition for Probate and Letters Testamentary and the Last Will and Testament of Jeffrey Epstein are collectively attached as Exhibit 3. 2 EFTA00074745  the 1953 Trust. On January 16, 2020, the Government filed a Criminal Activity Lien against the Estate to secure its claims against the Estate. Criminal Activity Lien Not. (Jan. 16, 2020), Exhibit 5. As the Plaintiff in that litigation, the Govemmcnt has an interest in the assets of the Estate, as well as an interest in ensuring that the laws of the Virgin Islands are enforced for the benefit of the Government and victims of Epstein's crimes. See Ex. 2. The Executors of the Estate, who are alleged to have been affiliated with various entities that participated in Epstein's criminal enterprise, cannot adequately protect the rights of the interest of the Government. Therefore, the Government should be allowed to intervene and assure assets, which are potentially subject to forfeiture and/or divesture, are protected from any potential mismanagement and conflict of interest by the Executors and its employees and/or consultants -- the Program Designers. In re the Estate of Small, 57 V.I. 416, 423 (2012); Hendricks v. Clyne, No. ST-16-CV-147, 2019 WL 918607, at *2 (Super. Ct. Feb. 20, 2019). Intervention is the only vehicle available to assure that the Government will not suffer detrimental harm by the actions of the Executors. IL RELEVANI' LAW A court must permit a party to intervene when they filed a timely motion and have "an unconditional right to intervene by federal or Virgin Island statute," or, have "an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action, and is so situated that disposing of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the movant's ability to protect its interest." V.I. R. CIV. P. Rule 24(a). A court may permit a party who is "given a conditional right to intervene by a federal or Virgin Islands statute," or who "has a claim or defense that shares with the main action a common question of law or fact." Rule 24(b). "The purpose of the rule governing intervention is to enable one not named as a party who has a direct, substantial, and legally 3 EFTA00074746 protectable interest in the subject matter of litigation to protect himself from an action that might be detrimental to him." Hendricks, 2019 WL 918607, at •2; see also Stiles v. Yob, No. 2016-0036, 2016 WL 3884506, at *4 (V.I. July 13, 2016). The right to intervene under Rule 24(a)(2)2 exists when the potential intervener meets three elements: (1) a sufficient interest in the subject matter of the pending litigation, (2) a substantial risk that the disposition of the litigation will impair the interest, and (3) the existing parties do not adequately protect that interest. Hendricks, 2019 WL 918607, at •2. Intervention is appropriate particularly, "when an individual has 'an unsecured claim, a cause of action against the estate' then '[1]ittle doubt remains that such an intangible interest is property protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.— In re the Estate ofSmall, 57 V.I. at 423 (quoting Tulsa Profl Collection Serv.. Inc•. v. Pope, 485 U.S. 478, 485, 108 S. Ct. 1340, 1345 (1988)). III. ANALYSIS Pursuant to Rule 24 subsections (a) and (h), the Government has a right to intervene in the present action. See Hendricks, 2019 WL 918607, at *2. Rule 24(b)(2) further supports the Government's right to permissively intervene : "On timely motion, the court may permit a federal or state governmental officer or agency to intervene if a party's claim or defense is based on: (A) a statute or executive order administered by the officer or agency; or (B) any regulation, order, requirement, or agreement issued or made under the statute or executive order." V.I. R. CIV. P. Rule 24(b)(2). Specifically, the Government is a rightful participant in any program designed to distribute the assets of the Epstein Estate because of its interest in the assets and disposition of the 2 In full, Rule 24 (a)(2) reads: - On a timely motion, the court must permit anyone to intervene who claims an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action, and is so situated that disposing of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the movant's ability to protect its interest, unless existing parties adequately represent that interest." V.I. R. CIV. P. Rule 24 (a)(2). 4 EFTA00074747 Estate, and because of the Attorney General's authority, and responsibility, to advocate for the public interest and enforce the laws of the Virgin Islands. See 3 V.I.C. § 114; 14 V.I.C. § 600. First, with a civil action pending against the Estate, the Government has a substantial interest in the property held by the Estate because it has a lien and a cause of action against the estate. In re the Estate of Small, 57 V.I. at 423. The Complaint filed by the Government against the Estate and Epstein's associates and affiliates seeks to require the Estate to forfeit or divest itself of certain assets, including the two islands it owns, Little St. James and Great St. James, in favor of the Government. Ex. 2, at pp. 46-48. The lawsuit also seeks civil penalties, damages, and equitable disgorgement, including funds for victims who were trafficked and abused by Epstein in the Virgin Islands. Id. Relatedly, the Government has an interest in the Estate in order to enforce the criminal activity lien against the Estate pursuant to 14 V.I.C. § 610. See Ex. 5. In particular, Virgin Islands law states that this lien - created in favor of the Government of the Territory of the Virgin Islands shall be superior to and prior to the interest of any other person in the personal or real property or beneficial interest in it." 14 V.I.C. § 610(f). The disposition of the Estate's assets, both through and outside of the Epstein Fund and the uncapped expenses of a Program Administrator, threatens to dissipate assets subject to the Government's CICO claims and criminal activity lien. To be clear, the Government does not seek to supplant funds that victims might receive through the Epstein Fund or otherwise, but is entitled to ensure its own legally enforceable interests in the Estate are protected. Thus, the Government faces "a substantial risk that disposition" of the Estate's assets "will impair [its] interest," satisfying the first two elements for intervention. Hendricks, 2019 WL 918607, at *2. 5 EFTA00074748  In addition, the Government has a substantial interest in ensuring that the Estate is administered subject to, and consistent with, the laws of the Virgin Islands. Jeffrey Epstein's place of residence at the time of his death was the Virgin Islands. His Estate is subject to probate in the Virgin Islands under its laws. Many of the abuses committed by Epstein occurred at his residence in the Virgin Islands. It is the laws and courts of the Virgin Islands that should direct and oversee the administration of his Estate, and the laws and courts of the Virgin Islands that must ensure that the interests of the Claimants and public policy are served. Based on the location of the assets and the decedent's residence at the time of his death, the Virgin Islands is the only proper situs for the distribution of funds from the Estate and/or the Trust. Under the framework of the Fund, there is no obligation that the Program Administrator be subject to the legal constraints imposed by the Probate Code or the supervision or approval of this Court, and provides no assurances that the Government's substantial and legally protectable interest in the distribution of the Estate's assets will be protected. Moreover, there is no ceiling. or floor, for funds to be paid to the victims, imperiling both the Government's ability to ensure that its own claims are satisfied, and to ensure that victims receive the compensation to which they are entitled. Turning to the final element, the existing parties, the Executors in the present matter, do not adequately protect the Ciovemment's interest. Only the Government and certainly not the Estate, can ensure that its interests are protected. Further, as discussed in the Government's Motion in Opposition to the Estate's Expedited Motion for Establishment of a Voluntary Claims Resolution, a significant conflict of interest exists on the part of the Executors. See Ex. 1, at 10. The Executors of Epstein's Estate, Darren K. Indyke and Rickard D. Kahn, were and are involved in various Epstein business entities that are alleged to share liability in Epstein's civil and criminal 6 EFTA00074749 violations in the Virgin Islands and elsewhere. Ex. 2, 14; 28. Therefore, there is no means, absent intervention, to ensure the Government's interest in its claims and in enforcing the laws of the Virgin Islands are protected. Therefore, the Government satisfies the final element for intervention pursuant to Rule 24(a)(2). Likewise, the Government satisfies all elements of permissive intervention under Rule 24(b). Undoubtedly, the Government's action is timely and "shares with the main action a common question of law or fact." V.I. R. CIV. P. Rule 24(b)(1)(B). Additionally, this is an action by the Government in furtherance of claims based on Virgin Islands statutes that by law the Government must enforce. These requirements are pursuant to both statutes (Rule 24(b)(2)A), as well as regulations, orders, and requirements made under the statute or executive order (Rule 24(b)(2)(B) that meet the elements to allow for permissive intervention. IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Government respectfully asks this Court GRANT the Government's Motion to Intervene. DATED: Januar 2020 Respectfully Submitted. DENISE N. GEORGE, ESQUIRE ATTORNSY GENERAL, IE M. . M 1, ESQUIRE CHIEF, CIVIL DIVISION Virgin Islands Department of Justice 34-38 Kronprindsens Gade. GERS Complex, 2d floor St. Thomas. Virgin Islands 00804 Email: MIMINIMMI 7 EFTA00074750  CERTIFICATE O F SERVICE IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that the foregoing Motion complies with the word and page requirements of V.1.R. Civ. P. 6-1(e) and, a true and correct copy of the Motion was served via regular mail, postage prepaid, with a courtesy copy sent by email to counsel of record on January 23, 2020 to: CHRISTOPHER ALLEN KROBLIN, ESQ. ANDREW W. HEYMANN, ESQ., WILLIAM BLUM, ESQ. SHAR1 D'ANDRADE, ESQ. MARJORIE WHALEN, ESQ. KELLERHALS FERGUSON KROBLIN PLLC Royal Palm Professional Building 9053 Estate Thomas, Suite 101 St. Thomas, V.I. 00802-3602 Email: ele 8 EFTA00074751  IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION O1 ST. THOMAS & ST. JOHN ******************************** IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, PROBATE NO. ST-19-PB-80 Deceased. ORDER GRANTING VIRGIN ISLANDS' MOTION TO INTERVENE ORDER THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Virgin Islands' Motion to Intervene in the Matter of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein. Having reviewed the motion, the Court finds that the Virgin Islands is entitled to intervene in this action pursuant to Virgin Islands Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 24. Accordingly, it is hereby: ORDERED that the Virgin Islands' Motion is GRANTED; and it is further ORDERED that the Virgin Islands' shall be made a Claimant-Intervener; and it is further ORDERED that the Virgin Islands' counsel shall be added as counsel of record; and it is further ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be directed and served to counsel of record. Dated: CAROLYN P. HERMON PERCELL Magistrate Judge of the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands I EFTA00074752  f EFTA00074753 ATTEST: ESTRELLA H. GEORGE Clerk of the Court BY: Court Clerk Supervisor 2 EFTA00074754  I EFTA00074755 EXHIBIT 1 EFTA00074756  0 EFTA00074757  IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN ************************************* IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF: ) ) JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, ) PROBATE NO. ST-19-PB-80 ) Deceased. ) GOVERNMENT'S OPPOSITION TO ESTATE'S MOTION FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF A VOLUNTARY CLAIMS RESOLUTION PROGRAM COMES NOW the Government of the Virgin Islands ("Government"), and files this Opposition to the Estate's Expedited Motion for Establishment of a Voluntary Claims Resolution Program. The Government opposes the program proposed by the Executors because the program does not secure the Government's substantial and legally protectable interest in the appropriate and supervised distribution of the Estate's assets. Protecting these interests requires the Government to intervene in the present action. The Government's Motion to Intervene is filed separately, and concurrently with this Motion. I. BACKGROUND Jeffrey Epstein was found dead on August 10, 2019, while in custody in New York for sex crimes. U.S. Virgin Islands v. Estate of Jeffrey Epstein, et at, No. ST-2020-CV-14, 7 7 (Super Ct. Civ. Jan. 15. 2020), Exhibit I. On August 15, 2019, the Estate of Jeffrey Epstein ("the Estate") was created. The Executors, Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn, filed a Petition for Probate and Letters Testamentary with the Probate Division of the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands on August 15, 2019. Id. 8. The Petition for Probate included Mr. Epstein's Last Will and Testament.' Id. Two days before his death, Mr. Epstein amended his previous trust, named "The ' The Petition for Probate and Letters Testamentary and the Last Will and Testament of Jeffrey Epstein are collectively attached as Exhibit 2. EFTA00074758 Jeffrey E. Epstein 2019 Trust" dated January 18. 2019, which was later amended and restated on February 4, 2019. On August 8, 2019, Epstein again amended and restated his trust, which was renamed "The 1953 Trust," and Epstein's Last Will and Testament, so that all his "property, real and personal, wherever situated" was bequeathed to the acting Trustees of The 1953 Trust. On November 14, 2019, the Executors of the Estate filed an Expedited Motion for Establishment of a Voluntary Claims Resolution Program ("Epstein Fund" or "Fund"). Ex'r Expedited Mot. at 3 (Nov. 14, 2019), Exhibit 3. The Motion asks this Court to "establish an independent and voluntary claims resolution program for purposes of resolving sexual abuse claims against Jeffrey E. Epstein." Id. at I. The Motion proposes engaging Jordana Feldman, Kenneth Feinberg and Camille Biros as Program Administrators for the Epstein Fund. Id. at 6. The Executors also propose that the situs of the Program Administrators be New York. Id. at 3. On January 15, 2020, the Government filed a lawsuit against the Estate, The 1953 Trust, and Epstein's affiliates and associates for violation of the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act ("CICO"). 14 V.1.C. § 600 et seq., and civil conspiracy, seeking forfeiture and divestment of assets in favor of the Government, as well as civil penalties, damages, and other remedies. As the Plaintiff in that litigation, the Government has an interest in the assets of the Estate, as well as an interest in ensuring that the laws of the Virgin Islands are enforced for the benefit of the Government and the victims of Epstein's crimes. The Executor's responded to the United States Virgin Islands' Complaint via a letter from the proposed co-designer and administrator of the proposed fund, Jordana Feldman on January 16, 2020. Letter from Jordana Feldman to Attorney General Denise N. George (Jan. 16, 2020), Exhibit 4. 11. ARGUMENT a. The Epstein Fund Does Not Protect the Government's Interest in the Estate 2 EFTA00074759  With a Government civil CICO action pending in the Superior Court against the Estate and Epstein's business associates and affiliates, the Government has a substantial interest in the property held by the Estate. In re the Estate ofSmall, 57 V.I. 416, 423 (2012) ("when an individual has 'an unsecured claim, a cause of action against the estate,' then little doubt remains that such an intangible interest is property protected by the Fourteenth Amendment."). The Government's Complaint seeks to require the Estate to forfeit or divest itself of certain assets, including the two islands it owns, Little St. James and Great St. James, in favor of the Government. Compl. pp. 46- 48. The lawsuit also seeks civil penalties, damages, and equitable disgorgement, including funds for victims who were trafficked and abused by Epstein in the Virgin Islands. Id. The Government has filed a Criminal Activity Lien against the Estate pursuant to 14 V.I.C. § 610. Criminal Activity Lien (Jan. 16, 2020), Exhibit 5. This Government's Criminal Activity Lien was statutorily "created in favor of the Government of the Territory of the Virgin Islands shall be superior to and prior to the interest of any other person in the personal or real property or beneficial interest in it." 14 V.I.C. § 610(f). The disposition of the Estate's assets, including through the Epstein Fund and the uncapped expenses of a Program Administrator, threatens to dissipate assets subject to the Government's claims and Criminal Activity Lien. To be clear, the Government does not seek to supplant funds that victims might receive through the Epstein Fund or otherwise, but is entitled to ensure its own legally enforceable interests in the Estate are protected. In addition, the Government has a substantial interest in ensuring that the Estate is administered subject to, and consistent with, the laws of the Virgin Islands. The Virgin Islands Victim's and Witness' Bill of Rights, 34 V.I.C. § 203, entitles victims of crimes to be treated with dignity and compassion, to be protected from intimidation, to be informed of their legal rights, and to receive reparations for physical or emotional injuries suffered as a result of being a victim of a EFTA00074760 violent, bodily crime, as determined by the Virgin Islands Criminal Victims Compensation Commission. Under the framework of the Fund, there is no obligation that the Program Administrator be subject to the legal constraints imposed by the Virgin Islands Probate Lair or the supervision or approval °finis Court, and provides no assurances that the Government's substantial and legally protectable interest in the Estate's assets will be protected. Indeed, while the Motion purports to invoke Rule 90 of the Virgin Islands Rules of Procedure as its basis, its failure to conform to that Rule demonstrates its deficiencies. V.I. R. CIV. P. Rule 90 requires that a mediator be a "neutral third person." Here, the Program Administrators were chosen solely by the Executors, and has decision-making authority beyond that of any mediator. Rule 90(a). Local civil procedure rules provide for communications among parties, and participation in discovery—none of which have to be followed by the Fund. b. The Epstein Fund Does Not Set Aside Funds for Future Claimants As structured, the Epstein Fund is fundamentally flawed and is not designed to achieve justice for the victims of Epstein and his associates and affiliated entities. For example, the Epstein Fund's design would be. in part, determined by an undefined group of "those with an interest in resolution of the Sexual Abuse Claims." Ex'r Expedited Mot. at 4-5. This group could include any number of individuals and entities, including defendants in the various lawsuits that have an interest clearly in conflict with those of potential claimants. The Fund also fails to specify what constitutes as sexual assault and who qualifies as a Claimant. Thus, for example, children who were sexually abused by Epstein may mistakenly believe that they consented to his assault, and may not recognize their eligibility for compensation. See. 14 V.I.C. §§ 133-137; 14 V.I.C. § 600 et seq.; 14 V.I.C. §§ 505-507; 14 V.I.C. § 500 et seq.; 14 V.I.C. §§ I 700a, 1702, 1708-1709. 4 EFTA00074761  Additionally, the Epstein Fund covers only those who have already made claims or will make claims immediately following notification of its creation. The program provides no set-aside for later claimants. This structure is unduly coercive, and jeopardizes the potential recovery available to victims unless they immediately avail themselves of the Fund. As the Court is undoubtedly aware, many of the claims in this matter are and will be made by those who were minors at the time of Epstein's abuse. Therefore, any program proposed to compensate Epstein's victims should account for the psychological trauma of minors, who often repress memories of their abuse, by allowing them additional time for filing a claim instead of limiting the time for filing. The blatant intimidation tactics employed by Defendants in the Government's CICO action further cements the need for such a window. This is another reason, the Court should deny the Estate's request. c. The Eligibility Criteria is Flawed and Subjects Claimants to Re-Victimization. i. The Evidence Requirement Could Potentially Exclude Deserving Claimants The framework proposed for each Claim raises serious concerns that the Fund will exclude victim/claimants who may be unable to document their claims, without additional time for discovery. Many of the victims will have no documentation or "any additional corroborating or supporting information required to help substantiate their claim." Ex'r Expedited Mot. at 4-5. Outside of flight records, messages, and records of cash transfers — none of which are in the possession of the Claimants — such information may not exist. In fact, this predicament is created in part by Defendants own design, as Epstein's computer servers are alleged to have been purposefully destroyed in 2008. Indeed, as the Government's CICO complaint lays out in detail, Epstein and his associates went to great length to conceal their conduct. Compl. 70-89. 5 EFTA00074762  • Additionally, the Program implicitly assumes that Claimants have access to materials and information that is in some cases is over a decade old. Even if Epstein and business affiliates and associates did not destroy the evidence, the likelihood that victims maintained evidence of their own abuse is slim. Thus, the process should allow for the open examination of records available to Epstein's Estate, and the discovery of others via the assistance of Epstein's many employees, to assist potential claimants in substantiating claims. The ability of Claimants to fairly make their case is further prejudiced by the invitation to meet with the Program Administrator. This invitation asks Claimants to travel to New York to provide additional information "that may bear upon evaluation" of the Claim. Ex'r Expedited Mot. at 5. Such a request seems designed to prejudice Claimants, many of whom may not have the means to travel to New York. Additionally, the Epstein Fund's language suggests that the absence of either "corroborating evidence" or the ability to travel to the Program Administrator, by design, will ensure the Claimant's claim will fail to qualify, potentially deterring eligible Claimants from coming forward. The Epstein Fund is also silent as to the outcome of Claims that are dismissed, either by Claimants or the Program Administrator. The Fund contains no assurances that the information submitted by a Claimant cannot be later used against her if she thereafter decides to file suit against the Estate or any other co-defendant. Likewise, the Epstein Fund provides no protection to Claimants who voluntarily provide information that may later be used to defend the Estate from claims or provide evidence against other victims. Without these necessary protections, claimants are vulnerable to re-victimization. The absence of clear and precise parameters for inclusion or exclusion in the Fund and those with an "interest in resolution" fails to provide appropriate guidance to ensure potential Claimants will not he left out. Ex'r Expedited Mot. at 5. Specifically, without clear critcria, 6 EFTA00074763 potential claimants may not have the information or confidence to approach the Fund, with the effect that legitimate claimants (including those who may not have the means or desire to pursue their own litigation) will be left out. ii. The Range of Compensation Must be Available to Claimants Before Filing The parameters for the potential awards available through the Epstein Fund are too vague, and thus unacceptable. While the Government agrees that each Claimant's claim should undergo an individualized analysis, the potential range of compensation available for each claim should be provided in advance. As stated herein, the abuse suffered by each Claimant caused significant physical and emotional injury, and, before a potential Claimant chooses to revisit those painful episodes, they should know the potential range of compensation. Moreover, the Program Administrator should not be permitted to subjectively award compensation to Claimants in a vacuum without oversight. This carte blanche authority has the potential to impact not only the Estate's ability to satisfy other liabilities for which it must be held accountable, but makes it less likely that each Claimant receives the compensation to which she is fairly and impartially entitled. With no right to do this, or court oversight to approve or disapprove compensation under the Epstein Fund, Epstein's Estate essentially requests this Court blindly approve a subjective determination that may detrimentally affect the very individuals it was allegedly proposed to compensate. Ex'r Expedited Mot. at 4-6.Moreover, the Fund should disclose any limits on the amounts of compensation, individually or collectively, and be required to develop a plan to effectively communicate its availability to any potential Claimant. d. The Waiver Requirement is Unjust Currently, acceptance of the Program Administrator's determination under the Epstein Fund requires Claimants to release "any claims she may have against any person or entity arising 7 EFTA00074764 from or related to Mr. Epstein's conduct, as set forth in the Protocol." Ex'r Expedited Mot. at 5. This is improper, impermissible and deceptive. It effectively precludes victims from filing claims against persons or entities and other perpetrators, who arc not part of the estate, subjecting them to re-victimization. The scheme as proposed by the Executors further protects these perpetrators from liability and accountability for their criminal acts. Any Epstein Fund —were it to be approved — must be limited to only claims against Jeffrey Epstein for the further reason that the Estate itself is limited to only his assets. The Program also does not specify whether the Administrator is permitted or required to share evidence with law enforcement, thus positioning the Fund as a potential means to conceal criminal activity. e. The Epstein Fund Presents Unavoidable Conflicts of Interest The Motion fails to disclose inherent potential conflicts of interest between the Executors and the Fund. The Executors of Epstein's Estate, and also the movants for the Expedited Motion to establish the Epstein Fund, Darren K. lndyke and Rickard D. Kahn. were and are involved in various Epstein business entities that arc alleged to share liability in Epstein's civil and criminal violations in the Virgin Islands. Both Indyke and Kahn are the Trustees of the 1953 Trust, which holds almost all of Epstein's assets. See Compl. 72 l3. Furthermore, the Executors are also officers of at least two of Epstein's entities, Poplar, Inc. and Nautilus, Inc., alleged to be intricately involved in carrying out Epstein's illegal enterprise. Id. at 19-22; 28-30. The Executors appear to be close allies of Epstein who are to be compensated for administration of the Estate and are tainted by obvious conflicts of interest. As officers, the Executors could be held potentially liable for the alleged conduct of the companies, creating an inescapable conflict of interest in recommending a program that proposes to compensate any individual or entity making such allegations requiring in return for overly broad releases. The Fund does not delineate the role, if any, of the Estate in approving the program criteria or administration, including the scope or timing of the Fund. The 8 EFTA00074765 lack of clarity in the Estate's role creates uncertainty in the fairness and integrity of this critical process. The Executors should be expressly precluded from having any role in setting the criteria or the process for or evaluating or approving potential claims. Furthermore, disclosure of conflicts is critical to allow the Court to evaluate the ability of the Program to engage in fair and impartial arms-length negotiations or resolution. 1. Undisclosed Costs of the Epstein Fund Administration May Diminish Funds Available to Victims Any settlement fund of this magnitude and scope must have, at the outset, clear limitations on costs to be expended in maintenance of the program. No such limitations exist here, yet the Petition admits the "significant expense in developing and administering the Program." Epstein Fund Petition, at Ill. The Petition for Probate and Letters Testamentary provides in detail the extent of the Estate's holdings. See Ex. 2. While the Estate is substantial, it is not unlimited. Administrative costs of the Epstein Fund have the potential to rapidly deplete the funds available to compensate Claimants under the Epstcin Fund. Furthermore, the Fund as proposed offers no reconciliation or accountability. There is no disclosure of Epstein's conduct (which can be done while protecting individual Claimants' privacy), the number of victims, or the amount or awards paid. Instead, it treats the Fund as a private settlement without transparency to the Court, the Government and the victims of Epstein's criminal activity. . III. CONCLUSION The Government opposes the creation of the Epstein Fund for the foregoing reasons. The Government therefore respectfully requests that the Court DENY the Executors' Motion for the Establishment of a Voluntary Claims Resolution Program. 9 EFTA00074766 EFTA00074767  IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS & ST. JOHN ******************************** IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, PROBATE NO. ST-19-PB-80 Deceased. ORDER THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Co-Executors' Expedited Motion for Establishment of a Voluntary Claims Resolution Program and the Government's Opposition thereto. After due deliberation and consideration, it is hereby: ORDERED that the Co-Executors' Expedited Motion for Establishment of a Voluntary Claims Resolution Program is DENIED; and it is ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be directed and served to counsel of record. Dated: CAROLYN P. HERMON-PERCELL Magistrate Judge of the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands ATTEST: ESTRELLA H. GEORGE Clerk of the Court BY• Court Clerk Supervisor EFTA00074768 EFTA00074769 EXHIBIT 2 EFTA00074770  I EFTA00074771  IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES VIRGIN ISLANDS. Case No.: PLAINTIFF, ACTION FOR DAMAGES V. ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, THE 1953 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED TRUST, PLAN D, LLC; GREAT ST. JIM, LLC; NAUTILUS, INC.; HYPERION AIR, LLC; POPLAR, INC'., JOHN AND JANE DOES DEFENDANTS. COMPLAINT COMES NOW, the Government of the United States Virgin Islands ("Government") and files this Complaint against the above-named Defendants and in support thereof. would show unto the Court as follows: JURISDICTION AND PARTIES I. The Attorney General of the United States Virgin Islands (herein after "Virgin Islands") brings this action on behalf of the Plaintiff, Government of the Virgin Islands, pursuant to 3 V.I.C. § 114 and her statutory authority to enforce the laws of the Virgin Islands, and advocate for the public interest, safety, health and well-being of persons in the Virgin Islands. 2. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this civil matter pursuant to 4 V.I.C. § 76 and 14 V.I.C. 3 607. 3. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the parties pursuant to 5 V.I.C. § 4903. EFTA00074772  GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein GVI's Complaint Page 2 of 48 4. The Virgin Islands is an unincorporated territory of the United States . It consists of St. Thomas, St. Croix, St. John, and Water Island, and more than 40 surrounding islands and Cays, some of which are privately owned. Among these privately owned islands are Little St. James and Great St. James. 5. Jeffrey E. Epstein ("Epstein") was a resident of the Virgin Islands and he maintained a residence on Little St. James, which he acquir ed in 1998 and in 2016 he also purchased Great St. James. 6. Epstein registered as a sex offender in the Virgin Islands in 2010. He was a Tier I offender under Virgin Islands law based upon his Florida conviction of procuring a minor for prostitution. As a Tier I offender, Epstein was required to regist annua er lly with the Virgin Islands Department of Justice ("VIDOJ") and give advance notice of his travel to and from the Virgin Islands. Epstein was also subject to random address verification by VIDOJ. 7. Epstein was found dead on August 10, 2019 while in custody in New York for sex crimes. 8. Defendant, Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein ("The Estate"), created upon Epstein's death, is domiciled in the Virgin Islands. On August 15, 2019, the Executors of The Estate, Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, filed a Petition for Probate and Letters Testamentary which included Epstein's last will and testament with the Proba te Division of the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands. 9. The Petition reports the value of the real and personal prope rty in The Estate located in the Virgin Islands at $577,672,654.00 dollars. 10. According to the Petition, the assets in the Virgin Islands thus far includes: a. $56.5 million in cash; EFTA00074773  GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein GVI's Complaint Page 3 of 48 b. $127 million in fixed income and equity investments; c. $195 million in hedge fund and private equity investments; and d. $18.5 million in planes, boats, and automobiles. The Estate has not yet valued his fine arts, antiques, and other valuables. 11. The Estate also includes shares of various corporate entities which hold residences and real property used by Epstein, namely: a. Brownstone in New York City valued at $56 million; b. Ranch in New Mexico valued at $72 million; c. Gated home in Palm Beach, Florida, valued at $12 million; d. Seven units in an apartment building in Paris, valued at $8 millio n; and e. Great St. James and Little St. James, collectively valued at $86 million. 12. The Estate is responsible to pay damages for the acts comm itted by Epstein and the Epstein Enterprise described below. 13. Defendant, The 1953 Trust ("The Trust") was created by Epstein, who "amended and restated" its terms only two days before his suicide. That same day, Epstein revised his Last Will and Testament, transferring all of his "property, real and personal, wherever situated" to The Trust. 14. The Trust also contains Epstein's financial assets and is also responsible to pay damages for the acts committed by Epstein and the Epste in Enterprise described below. The Trust's administrators, Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn , filed a Certificate of Trust in the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands for The Trust on Augu st 26, 2019. 15. Epstein maintained a deliberately complex web of Virgin Islands corporations, limited liability companies, foundations, and other entitie s, not all of which are yet known to the EFTA00074774  GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein GVI's Complaint Page 4 of 48 Government of the Virgin Islands, through which he carried out and concealed his criminal conduct. 16. Epstein regularly created new entities in the territory and transferred properties and funds between them in order to preserve and shield Epstein's assets and to facilitate and conceal the unlawful acts described in this Complaint. 17. These entities held properties, including Little St. James and Great St. James, at which Epstein trafficked and sexually abused women and underage girls. Epstein owned and arranged for private planes, helicopters, boat and automobiles to transport victims to, from, and within the Virgin Islands, and provided money to pay these young women and underage girls. 18. Epstein sat at the hub of this web, serving as president, member, manager, or director of each of the entities and, upon information and belief, directing their activities. 19. Defendant, Nautilus, Inc., is a corporation established and organized under the laws of