Epstein Data Wiki

Matthew Menchel

Properties2
tagsperson, prosecutor, usao-sdfl, non-prosecution-agreement, operation-leap-year, defence-bar, conflicts
aliasesMatthew Menchel, Matt Menchel, Menchel, Matthew, M. Menchel, Matthew I. Menchel

20 min read

OfficeChief of the Criminal Division, United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida, from October 2006. He joined the office in 1998 after eleven years as a Manhattan assistant district attorney1
⭐ The actOn 3 August 2007 he signed the letter to Epstein’s counsel setting a two-year state term as “a non-negotiable minimum”, with a deadline of 17 August. The United States names him as its author in a court filing2
⭐ And the otherOn 14 May 2007 he refused the line prosecutor authority to indict: “You will not have approval to go forward tomorrow with an indictment or to poceed by complaint”3
His own account of his role”As Chief of the Criminal Division, I am the person designated by the US Attorney to exercise appropriate discretion in deciding whether certain pleas are appropriate … not you.”4
He left the office3 August 2007, the same day that letter went out, after the offer was extended and before the agreement’s terms were settled. ⚠ No document in the release gives a reason or connects the departure to the case5
Where he wentKobre & Kim LLP, as a Miami partner6
AfterwardsFrom May 2010 Epstein tried to hire him, repeatedly, over seven years. A conflicts check, a meeting, two named matters, and in 2017 Epstein weighing it again7
⚠ And he declined22 July 2013: “I’m still not comfortable getting involved as I still see that my involvement when I was Chief of Criminal could create a conflict.”8
Was he ever engaged?Not establishable, and the negative is controlled. No retainer, invoice, fee, payment or wire naming him appears anywhere in the release9

Matthew Menchel ran the Criminal Division of the United States Attorney’s Office in Miami while that office was deciding what to do about Jeffrey Epstein. He refused his own line prosecutor permission to indict; he signed the letter that set the terms Epstein was eventually offered; and he left the office on the day that letter went out.

Three years later Epstein began trying to hire him, and kept trying for seven years.

This page is built on those two facts and on what sits between them. It is not built on the victim-notification dispute, which is covered at A. Marie Villafaña and is the weakest thing in this subject’s file.

Inside the office, 2007

14 May: no authority to indict

At 10:52 on the morning of 14 May 2007, under the subject “Re: Operation Leap Year”, he wrote to Villafaña and to Andrew Lourie:

You will not have approval to go forward tomorrow with an indictment or to poceed by complaint. Alex has your memo and lefcourt’s letter but he is out of the district…

and added: “I’m having trouble understanding - given how long this case has been pending - what the rush is.”3

The misspelling of “proceed” is on the sheet.

21 June: who is in the room

Setting the government’s attendee list for a meeting with the defence on 26 June, he wrote: “I thought you, me, Andy, and Jeff. I thought it best to leave Alex out of it at this venture.” The same message records his own direct channel to defence counsel: “Lily told me that they wanted to present something in writing before the meeting… I’ll mention it to Lily if you like.”10

5 July: the chain of command

His rebuke to Villafaña, copied to two superiors, is the clearest statement in the release of how he understood his own authority:

Both the tone and substance of your email are totally inappropriate and, in combination with other matters in the past, it seriously calls your judgment into question… you were never given authorization by anyone to seek an indictment in this case.

As Chief of the Criminal Division, I am the person designated by the US Attorney to exercise appropriate discretion in deciding whether certain pleas are appropriate and consistent with the Ashcroft memo and the USAM — not you.

Nor will I direct Epstein’s lawyers to communicate only with you… there is a chain of command - something you disregard with great regularity.

The same message states: “You should also know that my discussion with Lily Sanchez was made with the US Attorney’s full knowledge.”4

3 August: the letter, and the last day

On 3 August 2007, by facsimile, a letter went to Lilly Ann Sanchez:

the Office believes that the federal interest will not be vindicated in the absence of a two-year term of state imprisonment

Please let us know your client’s decision by no later than August 17. I have conferred with U.S. Attorney Acosta who has asked me to communicate that the two-year term of incarceration is a non-negotiable minimum to vindicate a federal interest, and, at this time, he is not inclined to meet with counsel for Mr. Epstein.

The signature block reads “R. Alexander Acosta, United States Attorney / By:” over an ink signature on the rule, above the printed “Matthew Menchel, Chief, Criminal Division.” This is a signature, verified on the image, and not a printed name on a blank rule. Copies went to Roy Black, Gerald B. Lefcourt, Acosta, Jeffrey Sloman, Andrew Lourie and Villafaña.2

The United States itself attributes the authorship, in a court filing listing the document as “Letter to Lilly Ann Sanchez, Esq., dated August 3, 2007 … Author: Matthew Menchel.”2

That was his last day at the office. The Justice Department’s own timeline of the matter records it in one line: “Aug 3 – Menchel’s last day at USAO; sends letter to Epstein’s counsel reiterating terms.”5

⚠ The sequence is documented and the causation is not. No document in the release gives a reason for the departure, says when he accepted a position elsewhere, or connects the two. The page states the order of events and stops.5

What the Justice Department later found about him

The Office of Professional Responsibility’s review records that he “participated in the decision to extend a two-year state-based plea proposal to Epstein and communicated it to the defense”, and that the office’s first plea overture came from him, before the June 2007 meeting.11

Two findings about him are not on any other page of this wiki.

On a prior personal relationship with a defence attorney. Asked what advice he would have given, the office’s Professional Responsibility Officer said that “[g]iven the sensitivity of the [Epstein] matter, [my advice] would probably have been to tell him to step back and let somebody else take it over.” OPR’s own assessment:

OPR assesses that it would have been prudent for Menchel to have informed his supervisors so they could make an independent assessment as to whether his continued involvement in the Epstein investigation might create the appearance of a loss of impartiality.

Acosta, Sloman and Lourie each told OPR they had not known of the relationship at the time. Menchel told OPR it did “[n]ot at all” affect his handling of the case, and that had it “turned into something more than a handful of dates he would have advised his supervisors.”11

⚠ The attorney is not named here. The name is barred in that passage, and joining it to a name printed on a nearby folio would be an inference from an adjacent redaction. This page does not make it.11

What victims’ counsel alleged, and what it produced

Before the CVRA requests for admission were served, counsel for Epstein’s victims put a question to the U.S. Attorney’s Office in writing. Their letter says the former Criminal Chief “left your office to work at a New York law firm representing white collar criminals”, notes the location of his New York apartment relative to property owned by Epstein, and states:

[t]he location of Menchel’s apartment, his role during the Epstein negotiations and his departure immediately after the NPA was signed, leads us to believe that [he] and Epstein may have had a business or other relationship either during or after [his] time in the Office

That is an assertion by a party and a statement of belief, not a finding, and this page carries it as such. It is the origin of one of the CVRA requests for admission. ⚠ The apartment-proximity detail is the letter’s stated basis for a belief and is not reproduced here as a fact.12

⚠ On the record as the release has it, the belief is not borne out. The first contact between the two men that the release documents is May 2010, and Epstein’s own words in 2017 are that Menchel was “cheif of criminal when my case started, but left way before it ended”, someone “i had never ever met until years after my release.”13

After the office: seven years of being asked

There is a gap first, and it is a controlled one. Across Epstein’s own document sets, no document mentioning Menchel carries the year 2008 or 2009, against 66 pages for 2007, 101 for 2010, 712 for 2011 and 371 for 2012 on the identical scan. The release shows no contact between them in those two years.14

18 May 2010. Lilly Ann Sanchez sets up a meeting. That evening Menchel writes to Epstein:

Jeffrey, We have no conflict regarding Highbridge. If it is not too late, we can still meet tomorrow at 3:00 at my offices. If it is alright with you, I would also like my partner, Michael Kim, to participate by phone or video for at least some of the meeting.

The meeting happens the next afternoon.7

15 October 2010. Epstein’s entire message, subject line included, is:

now that there can be no conflict. when are you next in new york

Nine days later Menchel replies: “I very much enjoyed our talk the other night. I look forward to the possibility of working together, but regardless let’s keep in touch.”7

29 October 2010. Epstein asks him to take two matters: a claim against his bankers, and “a lawsuit against one of Rothsteins partners < BRad Edwards”. Menchel follows up twice, and asks for the Statement of Claim.7

Then, in 2013, he refuses. Asked to speak to another lawyer about the victims’ CVRA litigation:

Jeffrey, As you know, I’ve always stayed out of your matter with the US Attorney’s Office based on my involvement with your case. While I understand the Office is now recused, I’m still not comfortable getting involved as I still see that my involvement when I was Chief of Criminal could create a conflict. I hope you understand. Best. Matt

8

28 September 2017. Lesley Groff confirms a meeting at Epstein’s New York house that afternoon, copying Darren Indyke. At 8:45 that evening Epstein writes to Kathy Ruemmler:

if you get a chance give me a call. im t[h]inking of hiring matt menschel for the civl case in florida … as he was cheif of criminal when my case started, but left [w]ay before it ended. and one of the complaints in the cvra ca[s]e [w]as got an easy deal becasue menchel who i had never ever met until y[e]ars after my release. hoped to get business not sure if public[i]ty might be vicious

13

⚠ Two things are deliberately left off this page, and they are recorded rather than silently dropped: a prosecution-memorandum addendum addressed to him whose content is identified-victim detail, and the part of the later correspondence that concerns his family.15

Through all of it the relationship is also a social one. Epstein’s daily schedules, kept by his office, carry entries reading “Dinner w/Matt Menchel” and the like across 76 separate documents.16

And no engagement is documented

Not establishable, with the negative controlled. There is no retainer, no engagement letter, no invoice, no fee, no payment and no wire naming him anywhere in the release. Probes for each return zero on a join that returns 525 pages for his name with his firm’s, and 1,392 for his name with Epstein’s, in the same call. A probe for him acting as “counsel for” anyone returns eighteen pages, none of which shows him acting for Epstein.9

So what the release documents is an approach, a conflicts check, a meeting, two named matters, an expressed willingness, a refusal, and a reconsideration. It does not document an engagement, a filing, or a payment, and this page asserts none.

Notes

Footnotes

  1. Office of Professional Responsibility report, narrative folio 5. EFTA02830776 p.31, read at the image at 300 dpi. ⚠ Name-key note: the surname is the floor at 993 documents; "matthew menchel" reaches 167 and a both-orders NEAR reaches 652. ⚠ There is exactly one Menchel in this corpus — the tokens adjacent to the surname across 1,500 matching pages are Matthew, Matt, the middle initial I. and its OCR variants, and nothing else. No disambiguation is needed, which is unusual on this wiki and is stated because the surname count would otherwise look like an unpartitioned figure. Live controls run inline with every zero on this page: Villafana returns 4,537 pages, Menchel 2,476, a nonsense token 0. ↩

  2. Letter, U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida, VIA FACSIMILE, to Lilly Ann Sanchez, 3 August 2007, Re: Jeffrey Epstein. EFTA02756477 pp.2-3, both pages read at the image at 400 dpi; this is the court-filed copy, Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-49, docketed 10 February 2016, its own foot reading “Page 3 of 3”. ⚠ The signature is a manuscript ink mark crossing the rule, above the printed “Matthew Menchel, Chief, Criminal Division”, beneath “R. Alexander Acosta, United States Attorney / By:”. The distinction between an ink mark and a printed name over a blank rule is one this desk checks at the image every time, and here the mark is present. Attribution of authorship by the United States: “Letter to Lilly Ann Sanchez, Esq., dated August 3, 2007, RE: Jeffrey Epstein (2 pages), Author: Matthew Menchel”, in the United States’ Response to Petitioners’ Request for Production, EFTA00191148 p.41, read at the image. Four copies of the letter print his name; one bars it, and this page cites a copy that prints it. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  3. Menchel to A. Marie Villafaña and Andrew Lourie, 14 May 2007, 10:52 AM, subject “Re: Operation Leap Year”. EFTA00191148 p.9, read at the image at 300 dpi; no redaction bars on the page, and the misspelling “poceed” is on the sheet. ⚠⚠ EFTA00191148 is NOT a homogeneous run and must be cited by page: its pp.4-5 are the cover of an unrelated New York Appellate Division brief. The enclosure trap is live inside this identifier. ↩ ↩2

  4. Menchel to Villafaña, copied to Jeffrey Sloman and Andrew Lourie, 5 July 2007, 3:30 PM, signed “Matt”. EFTA00191148 pp.18-19; p.19 read at the image at 300 dpi with no bars, ⚠ p.18 was rendered but not opened, so the first quoted paragraph rests on the searchable text of that sheet and the remainder on the image. The “Ashcroft memo” and “USAM” are the Department’s own references. ⚠ This same message is already quoted verbatim on `documents/EFTA01302111`, which is linked rather than re-derived. ↩ ↩2

  5. OPR timeline graphic: “Aug 3 – Menchel’s last day at USAO; sends letter to Epstein’s counsel reiterating terms.” EFTA02830776 p.38, read at the image at 400 dpi. OPR narrative, same report p.31: “Shortly after that plea offer was extended to Epstein in early August 2007, and before the precise terms of the NPA were negotiated with defense counsel, Menchel left the USAO to enter private practice.” ⚠⚠ NOT ESTABLISHABLE as causation, and the page says so. No document gives a reason, names a next employer at the time, or connects the departure to the case. The zero is controlled: a proximity search for his name with “resign” returns 0 while the same join in the same call returns 40 pages across 24 documents for his name with “departure”. The office was still handling his correspondence after he had gone: the privilege log withholds “Emails dated 8/6/2007 … regarding Matt Menchel’s correspondence prior to his departure” as work product, EFTA00191199 p.41, already sourced at `topics/second-supplemental-privilege-log-2015`. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  6. Kobre & Kim LLP. ⚠ OPR says only “private practice” and does not name the firm; the firm is established from his own signature block at EFTA00758769 p.2, read at the image, and from a firm circular in Epstein’s files naming “Miami Partner Matthew Menchel”, EFTA01138565 p.1. ↩

  7. 18 May 2010, Menchel to Epstein, after Lilly Ann Sanchez arranged the introduction: EFTA00758769 p.2, read at the image at 300 dpi. The meeting of 19 May and the exchange of thanks on 20 May survive in two independent productions, EFTA00734547 p.1 and EFTA00758827 p.1, text layer only. 15 October 2010 (Epstein’s whole message) and 24 October 2010 (Menchel’s reply): EFTA00027873 p.1, read at the image at 300 dpi; the release holds this exchange in eight separate documents. ⚠ That sheet also carries a barred recipient alongside a partial name. This page does not attempt to resolve it, and names no one from it. 29 October 2010, Epstein’s two requests: EFTA01981242 p.4, read at the image at 300 dpi; ⚠ the text layer renders the list marker “1.” as “I.” and the image settles it. Menchel’s follow-ups of 31 October and 3 November, including “Just a friendly reminder to send me the Statement of Claim in the Bear Stearns matter”: same identifier p.1 at the image, p.3 text only. Spelling, punctuation and spacing in Epstein’s messages are as printed. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  8. Menchel to Epstein, 22 July 2013. EFTA00718286 p.1, read at the image at 300 dpi. Quoted whole. ⚠ This page treats this document as load-bearing for fairness: the subject declined, in writing, on conflict grounds, and a page that set out the approaches without it would be arguing rather than reporting. ↩ ↩2

  9. NOT ESTABLISHABLE, and the negative is controlled. Proximity probes for his name with each of “retainer”, “engagement”, “fee”, “wire”, “payment” and “expense”, and for his firm with “invoice”, all return 0 — on a join that in the same call returns 525 pages for his name with his firm’s and 1,392 pages for his name with Epstein’s. A probe for his name near “counsel for” returns 18 pages across 14 documents, and none of them shows him acting for Epstein: they are OPR copies, the 3 August 2007 letter itself, and a firm circular about an unrelated acquittal. ↩ ↩2

  10. Menchel, 21 June 2007, 2:58 PM. EFTA00191148 p.13, read at the image at 300 dpi, no bars. “Alex” is the U.S. Attorney, R. Alexander Acosta; “Lily” is Lilly Ann Sanchez, for Epstein. ⚠ Cite by page, not by run: see 3. ↩

  11. Office of Professional Responsibility report. Participation in the plea decision and communication of it to the defence: EFTA02830776 p.31, read at the image. The first plea overture, and the passage on the prior personal relationship including OPR’s “would have been prudent” assessment and the Professional Responsibility Officer’s quoted advice: same report p.180 and its footnote 226, text layer only. ⚠⚠ The defence attorney’s name is barred in that passage and is not supplied here. A name is printed on a nearby folio of the same report; joining the two would be an inference from an adjacent redaction, which is exactly the move this desk forbids, and it is not made. ⚠ OPR’s related finding that Menchel’s discussion with defence counsel “was made with Acosta’s ‘full knowledge’” is corroborated by the underlying e-mail itself, unredacted, at EFTA00191148 p.19, read at the image. ⚠ Two things sit together on the record and this page carries both: OPR’s overall “poor judgment” finding was directed at Acosta, and OPR separately assessed that Menchel should have told his supervisors. Neither cancels the other. See also `people/marie-villafana`, which carries OPR’s “no evidence” conclusion and the victim-notification exchange but not these two findings. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  12. Letter from counsel for the victims to the U.S. Attorney’s Office. EFTA01099834 p.58, text layer only. ⚠⚠ This is an assertion and a statement of belief by a party to litigation. It is not a finding, and nothing in the release establishes the business relationship it suggests. The page quotes it as the origin of a CVRA request for admission and for no other purpose. ⚠ The apartment-proximity detail is offered in the letter as the basis for a belief and is deliberately not reproduced here as a fact; no address of any kind is given on this page. ↩

  13. The meeting arrangement, 28 September 2017, Lesley Groff at 9:47 AM and Menchel at 10:03 AM, copied to Darren Indyke: EFTA00459419 p.1, read at the image at 300 dpi. Epstein to Kathy Ruemmler the same evening at 8:45 PM: EFTA02602713 p.1, read at the image at 300 dpi. Epstein’s spelling and bracketed letters are as printed, including “menschel”, “cheif” and “civl”. A further message of 3 October 2017, “News? I’m looking forward to having more of a reason to meet ;)”, is at EFTA02589556 p.1, ⚠ rendered but not opened, and rests on the text layer. ↩ ↩2

  14. Scan of 646 pages mentioning him across Epstein’s own document sets. No document mentioning him in those sets carries the year 2008 or 2009, against 66 pages carrying 2007, 101 carrying 2010, 712 carrying 2011 and 371 carrying 2012 on the identical scan. ⚠ This is an absence in Epstein’s files, not proof that no contact occurred, and the page says only what it shows. It is consistent with both men’s later accounts. ↩

  15. ⚠⚠ Recorded as a deliberate omission. EFTA00223881 is the 14 June 2007 addendum to the prosecution memorandum and is addressed to him. Its content is identified-victim abuse detail. It has not been quoted, summarised, paraphrased or counted, and it is cited nowhere on this page; his being an addressee is established instead from the memorandum’s addressee block at EFTA00191148 p.39. ⚠ Also deliberately omitted: a substantial part of the 2011-2018 correspondence concerns the subject’s minor child and the death of his father. None of it appears on this page in any form. He is a living private individual outside his public office, and nothing about his family is published here. ↩

  16. "w matt menchel" returns 76 documents, Epstein’s daily schedules prepared by his office, carrying entries such as “5:30 Dinner w/Matt Menchel”. One verified at the image at 300 dpi: EFTA02028019 p.1, a schedule for Tuesday 13 December. ⚠ A recurring third-party-generated diary entry is evidence that meetings were scheduled. It is not evidence of what was discussed, and this page draws no inference from the count beyond the fact of a continuing social relationship. ↩

Backlinks