The Rome prosecutors' file on the Epstein material

What was reported	That the prosecutor’s office in Rome has opened a file on the Epstein material on a hypothesis of sexual violence123
Who reported it	La Repubblica, on its front page, on 5 September 2026; carried the same day and the next by the news agencies and the Italian press451
Offence hypothesis	violenza sessuale, sexual violence12
Named subjects	None. ANSA’s own subheading reads “Fascicolo contro ignoti”, a file against persons unknown, and the reporting states that no Italian is formally under investigation13
Register entry	Not stated by any source read for this page6
Magistrate named	Maurizio Arcuri, procuratore aggiunto14
Originating instrument	A formal esposto lodged with the Procura della Repubblica presso il Tribunale di Roma on 26 March 2026 by the association Differenza Donna78
Request to the United States	A rogatoria to the US Department of Justice for the material, including documents not yet made public14
Date that request was sent	The sources disagree, and this page does not resolve them: “nei giorni scorsi” on 5 September, “diversi mesi fa” in ANSA’s dispatch of the 6th9413
Statement from the prosecutor’s office	None in any source read for this page10

Everything this page could find about the Rome file itself comes from a single newspaper report of 5 September 2026 and the agency dispatches that followed it; the complaint that is said to have produced it is separately reported, five months earlier. No document issued by the Rome prosecutor’s office was located for this page, and this page is therefore a record of what was reported, by whom, on what date, and what each report attributes to whom. It is not a record of a prosecution. The file as reported names no individual, and this page names none either.

This page is about an investigation into material, not into a person. For the wider picture of who has investigated what, see the Epstein investigations overview.

What was reported, and by whom

On the morning of 5 September 2026 the Italian press reported that the Rome prosecutor’s office had opened a file on the Epstein material. ANSA’s dispatch, headed “La procura di Roma indaga sugli italiani negli Epstein file”, carries the subheading “Fascicolo contro ignoti, rogatoria su atti riservati. Differenza Donna: ‘passo importante’”, and states in its body: “La procura di Roma ha aperto un fascicolo per l’ipotesi di violenza sessuale, al momento nei confronti di ignoti”. Translated by this page: a file opened on the hypothesis of sexual violence, for the moment against persons unknown.¹

Two things about the attribution are worth stating plainly, because they decide how much weight the report can carry. First, the originating report is La Repubblica’s. Open’s write-up of the same morning attributes the detail of the request to the United States to that paper (“scrive la Repubblica”), and Il Tempo names the reporter as Giuseppe Scarpa.⁴⁵ Second, the agency dispatch says so too, although the two versions of it that this page read differ on the point. The copy carried by l’Adige, which opens “(ANSA) - ROMA, 05 SET -”, credits the paper in terms: “scrive la Repubblica che riporta in prima pagina la notizia”, writes La Repubblica, which carries the story on its front page. The ansa.it page’s own copy of the story names no other newspaper.¹¹¹ So the agencies here are relaying a newspaper, not confirming it from the court.

One further caution about the date, because it is the date on which this page’s own commission rests. The ANSA item is filed under a URL path dated 5 September 2026, and the page as read on 27 October 2026 displays the dateline “ROMA, 06 settembre 2026, 10:31” with the byline “Redazione ANSA”. The two are not the same day. This page does not reconcile them; it reports both and takes 5 September as the date of first publication because that is the date every other outlet carries.¹⁴⁵⁹

The procedural posture, and what the Italian terms mean

Nobody is a suspect. Three of the reports say so, in three different formulations. ANSA’s subheading has “Fascicolo contro ignoti” and its body “nei confronti di ignoti”. Il Fatto Quotidiano’s summary line reads “L’ipotesi di accusa, al momento contro ignoti, è di ‘violenza sessuale’”. L’Indipendente writes that the investigation “è per ora contro ignoti” and adds “nessun italiano risulta formalmente indagato”, no Italian is formally under investigation.¹²³

In Italian practice a notizia di reato, a report of an offence, is entered in one of several registers, and the register decides whether there is a suspect at all. Facts amounting to an offence against identified persons go in modello 21; an offence whose author is unknown goes in modello 44, the register of reports “a carico di soggetti ignoti”; and material the prosecutor judges not to amount to a report of an offence at all goes in modello 45, the register of “fatti che non costituiscono notizie di reato”. The status of indagato, a person under investigation, attaches only where there are indizi against a determined person.⁶

No source read for this page states which register the Rome file was entered in. The reporting describes an offence hypothesis entered against persons unknown. Which of those registers that corresponds to is a question this page leaves open, because no outlet answers it and the answer is not the reporting’s to give. What can be said on the reporting, and all that can be said, is that no individual is named as a subject of this file and nobody is reported as being under investigation in it.

A reader arriving from the September coverage should hold one more distinction. Several reports of that week, ANSA’s among them, ran the file alongside two other things: a call by the United States congressman Thomas Massie for an investigation to be opened, and a denial from an individual whose name had circulated in American commentary about the released files. The file reported here is against persons unknown. This page reproduces neither that name nor the commentary, because the two are different things and printing a name beside a file that names nobody would make an allegation the record does not contain.¹

The complaint of 26 March 2026

The file is reported to arise from an esposto, a formal complaint to a prosecutor that is not itself an accusation against a named person. ANSA reported on 31 March 2026 that the association Differenza Donna “ha presentato il 26 marzo un esposto formale alla Procura della Repubblica presso il Tribunale di Roma”, drafted by two lawyers heading the association’s legal office and asking for “l’avvio di indagini su possibili reati transnazionali di tratta, violenze sessuali e sfruttamento sessuale”: the opening of investigations into possible transnational offences of trafficking, sexual violence and sexual exploitation.⁷

The requests the complaint is reported to make are specific, and one of them matters for everything that follows. It asks the prosecutors “di attivare una rogatoria internazionale tramite il DOJ per ottenere i file non censurati relativi ai soggetti italiani”, to activate an international letter rogatory through the Department of Justice to obtain the uncensored files concerning Italian subjects. It also asks for checks on financial flows between Epstein and Italian subjects, through the Unità di Informazione Finanziaria and the Guardia di Finanza; for the position of two companies based in London and, the complaint says, traceable to Italian persons, Harbour Avenue and Harbour V, to be examined; for “eventuali vittime italiane o residenti in Italia”, any Italian victims or victims resident in Italy, to be identified and heard; and for coordination with the British judicial authorities already investigating.⁷⁸ The complaint had asked for exactly the step to Washington that was reported in September, five months before it was reported taken.

Both accounts name the drafters as two lawyers heading the association’s legal office. The first is Maria Teresa Manente. The second surname is Boiano, and its forename’s printed form is not stable: ANSA prints “Iaria Boiano” at the drafting line and “Ilaria Boiano” in the quotations below it, and Avvenire reproduces the same inconsistency. This page records both forms rather than choosing one.⁷⁸

The complaint is reported to have annexed its own count of Italian references in the American material. L’Indipendente gives the annexed figures as “Roma compare 3.593 volte, Capri 253, Amalfi 44, Ischia 12 e la Costa Smeralda tre”, and states that “L’associazione ha allegato le ricorrenze estratte dal database del Dipartimento di Giustizia”, that the association annexed occurrences extracted from the Department of Justice database. Those are the association’s counts of the Department’s database, reported by a newspaper; no independent verification of them is reported, and this page has not attempted one, because the population the association counted is the Department’s own release and not the set of documents this project holds.³

When the file was reported open, the association said so publicly. A press release carried by the DIRE agency on 5 September quotes its president, Elisa Ercoli: “Abbiamo ritenuto necessario chiedere che anche in Italia venissero svolti tutti gli accertamenti possibili”, we considered it necessary to ask that every possible check be carried out in Italy too. The same release carries a caution from the two lawyers about what a name in a document means. DIRE gives it as “non costituiscono, di per sé, prova di responsabilità penale”: do not in themselves constitute proof of criminal responsibility. ANSA carries the same caution in a shorter form, its own quotation running “La presenza di un nome in un documento o la frequentazione di Epstein non costituiscono” and no further. The two are quoted here separately because they are two outlets’ renderings of one press release and this page has not seen the release itself.¹²¹

The request to Washington, and the date nobody agrees on

The accounts that use the word agree that a rogatoria went to the United States, and that it asked for more than the published files. ANSA says the purpose included “compresi gli atti che ancora non sono stati resi pubblici”, including the documents that have not yet been made public. Open gives the purpose as “accertare se cittadini italiani all’estero oppure persone che abbiano agito sul territorio nazionale possano essere coinvolti”, to establish whether Italian citizens abroad, or persons who acted on national territory, may be involved.¹⁴

The accounts do not agree on when it was sent, and the gap between them is months. Quotidiano Nazionale and Open, both of 5 September, date it “nei giorni scorsi”, in recent days; Quotidiano Nazionale prints the phrase at the head of its sentence and so capitalises it. ANSA’s dispatch of the following morning says the opposite: “Dall’Italia la rogatoria è stata trasmessa alle autorità americane diversi mesi fa”, from Italy the letter rogatory was transmitted to the American authorities several months ago. L’Indipendente follows ANSA: “La rogatoria è stata trasmessa agli Stati Uniti già diversi mesi fa”, and attributes the statement to nobody.⁹⁴¹³

This page prints both readings and resolves neither. Which is right is not a detail, because it changes what the September reporting is about: on the first reading the request was a new act that week, and on the second the news of 5 September was the existence of the file, with the request already months old and unanswered. Nothing read for this page settles it.

What the prosecutor’s office has not said

No statement, press release or confirmation from the Procura di Roma appears in any source read for this page. Searches of the open web under the office’s name together with the Epstein material returned press coverage and nothing published by the office; the office’s own site did not appear in those results. Il Fatto Quotidiano’s report attributes no statement to the prosecutors and records no refusal to comment. Quotidiano Nazionale writes its account in the conditional, “sarebbe”, and rests the rest on the complainant association’s communiqué. La Freccia Web’s review of 10 September reports the file as a fact and attributes the magistrate’s name to nobody.¹⁰²⁹¹³

That is a bounded statement about what these searches returned, not a claim that the office has published nothing. But the shape of the record is worth naming: a criminal file, a named magistrate and an international request are all on the public record of this matter, and every one of them reaches the reader through one newspaper’s front page and one complainant organisation’s press release.

The same request, from other jurisdictions

The Italian request belongs to a class, and the rest of the class is better documented. On 9 September 2026, four days after the Rome file was reported, the Washington Post published a survey of European investigators seeking American evidence on Epstein. Poland’s National Prosecutor’s Office had asked in April for unredacted documents and, its spokesman said, had had no reply. Norway’s Økokrim had asked and, in its prosecutor’s words, “they have not at this time approved the request”. Latvia’s State Police said “no responses have yet been received”. On the British request concerning Peter Mandelson, the former British ambassador to the United States, the article relays the Telegraph: the Justice Department and the FBI had not responded to it. The Department of Justice’s position was that it “doesn’t comment on the status of mutual legal assistance requests with foreign law enforcement partners”, and a spokesman had earlier told the Telegraph that “The Department of Justice has not refused to assist any jurisdiction investigating potential criminal conduct related to Jeffrey Epstein.” The article also records that such requests ordinarily take “weeks or months”.¹⁴

Italy is not named anywhere in that article. Neither is the Rome file. That absence is worth more than a bare assertion, so here is the check behind it: the same read of the same article names Poland, Norway, Latvia, the United Kingdom and Germany, and quotes officials from three of them, so a reading that found five countries would have found a sixth. Whether the Italian request has been answered, refused, or is simply still in the queue is not established by anything read for this page, and the absence of Italy from the best-sourced survey of unanswered requests is a gap in the record rather than evidence in either direction.

The one instrument in this whole chain, as against a report of one, is a congressional letter. On 21 October 2026 Jamie Raskin, the ranking member of the House Committee on the Judiciary, wrote to Attorney General Todd W. Blanche and to Major General Vaughn A. Ary, Director of the Department’s Office of International Affairs, asking, in the letter’s own opening words, “Why is the Department of Justice (DOJ) refusing to share evidence with jurisdictions that are actually investigating Jeffrey Epstein’s associates and co-conspirators?” It states that “According to public reporting, DOJ is obstructing the efforts of both the United Kingdom (U.K.) and the State of New Mexico”, and it demands “All records and correspondence regarding Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty requests from foreign countries seeking DOJ assistance with investigations into potential co-conspirators of Jeffrey Epstein, including records sufficient to identify the individuals or investigations to which those requests relate”, by 5:00 p.m. on 4 November 2026. It cites the Washington Post survey as its authority for the European position.¹⁵

Italy is not named in the letter either, and its deadline had not fallen as at 27 October 2026. The same search of the letter’s four pages that returns nothing for “Italy”, “Rome”, “Procura” or “rogatory” returns the United Kingdom once, New Mexico eleven times, Norway, Poland and Latvia, and the words “Mutual Legal Assistance” three times, so the search would have found Italy had the letter named it. If the Department produces the records the letter demands, they are the first place an answer about the Italian request would be found. What they would reveal is not a matter this page can anticipate, and it does not try to.

Timeline

date	event	source
6 July 2025	The Department of Justice and the FBI jointly issue an unsigned memorandum stating there is no “evidence that could predicate an investigation against uncharged third parties”	the congressional letter of 21 October 2026, p.1 and n.215
10 March 2026	Reported that New Mexico had searched Zorro Ranch and re-opened its criminal investigation	the same letter, p.2 and n.9, citing a report of that date15
26 March 2026	Differenza Donna lodges a formal esposto with the Procura della Repubblica presso il Tribunale di Roma	ANSA, 31 March 20267
31 March 2026	The complaint becomes public	ANSA, 31 March 2026, 10:327
April 2026	Poland’s National Prosecutor’s Office asks the United States for unredacted documents	Washington Post, 9 September 202614
23 April 2026	Reported that the Department of Justice blocked the British investigation into Peter Mandelson and refused to hand over evidence from the Epstein files	the congressional letter, p.3 and n.1415
5 August 2026	New Mexico sues the Department of Justice for the unredacted documents	the same letter, n.1015
21 August 2026	Reported that the British police investigation is at risk of collapse	the same letter, n.1515
5 September 2026	La Repubblica reports on its front page that the Rome prosecutor’s office has opened a file; the agencies and the Italian press carry it the same morning	Open, Il Tempo, Il Fatto Quotidiano, Quotidiano Nazionale4529
5 September 2026	Differenza Donna’s press release on the opening is carried by the DIRE agency	DIRE, 12:1512
5 or 6 September 2026	ANSA’s dispatch, “Fascicolo contro ignoti, rogatoria su atti riservati”	ANSA; URL path 5 September, page dateline 6 September 10:311
6 September 2026	”nessun italiano risulta formalmente indagato”; the letter rogatory dated to “diversi mesi fa”	L’Indipendente, 17:083
9 September 2026	Poland, Norway, Latvia and the United Kingdom report unanswered or unapproved requests; the Department of Justice declines to comment on individual requests. Italy is not among them	Washington Post14
21 October 2026	Jamie Raskin demands all records of foreign mutual legal assistance requests on Epstein’s potential co-conspirators, by 5:00 p.m. on 4 November	the letter itself15

Two gaps in that sequence are worth stating as findings rather than as absences. One hundred and sixty-three days separate the complaint of 26 March from the first public report of a file on 5 September, and nothing read for this page says when within that interval the file was opened, or what the office did with the complaint meanwhile.⁷⁴ And the date the letter rogatory left Italy is contested across the sources by a margin of months, as set out above.⁹¹

What this page does not cover

It does not name any individual as a subject of the Rome file, because the file as reported names none. It does not reproduce names that circulated in commentary about the released material, or the denials attached to them. It does not state which register the file was entered in, because no source read for this page says. It makes no statement about whether any offence was committed in Italy or by any Italian, and records none. It does not cover the underlying American material itself, which is treated elsewhere on this wiki, nor the British, Polish, Norwegian, Latvian or New Mexico investigations beyond what the two documents cited here say about them. Every Italian phrase quoted above is given in the original with this page’s own English rendering beside it; where no rendering is given, none was needed.

Footnotes

1. ANSA, “La procura di Roma indaga sugli italiani negli Epstein file,” subheading “Fascicolo contro ignoti, rogatoria su atti riservati. Differenza Donna: ‘passo importante’,” byline “Redazione ANSA.” The URL path is dated 5 September 2026; the page as read on 27 October 2026 displays the dateline “ROMA, 06 settembre 2026, 10:31.” The page states: “La procura di Roma ha aperto un fascicolo per l’ipotesi di violenza sessuale, al momento nei confronti di ignoti”; “per accertare se nostri connazionali o persone che abbiano agito in Italia possano essere coinvolti”; “dal procuratore aggiunto Maurizio Arcuri”; “Dall’Italia la rogatoria è stata trasmessa alle autorità americane diversi mesi fa”; “compresi gli atti che ancora non sono stati resi pubblici”; “nasce dall’esposto presentato il 26 marzo scorso ‘Differenza donna’”; and, of the association, “un passaggio importante” and “La presenza di un nome in un documento o la frequentazione di Epstein non costituiscono.” The page carries “Riproduzione riservata © Copyright ANSA” and credits no other newspaper by name in its own copyright line. https://www.ansa.it/sito/notizie/cronaca/2026/09/05/indagine-della-procura-di-roma-sugli-italiani-negli-epstein-files_144afa36-da50-4944-a016-c834cf475473.html ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶ ↩⁷ ↩⁸ ↩⁹ ↩¹⁰ ↩¹¹ ↩¹² ↩¹³ ↩¹⁴ ↩¹⁵ ↩¹⁶ ↩¹⁷

2. Il Fatto Quotidiano, “Epstein Files: la procura di Roma apre un fascicolo e chiede gli atti segreti agli Usa,” 5 September 2026, read 27 October 2026. Its summary line reads “L’ipotesi di accusa, al momento contro ignoti, è di ‘violenza sessuale’.” The report names the coordinating magistrate as “procuratore aggiunto Maurizio Arcuri”; dates the complaint to 26 March and attributes it to the association Differenza Donna, using the word “esposto” rather than “denuncia”; and attributes the letter rogatory to the US Department of Justice to reporting in La Repubblica. It does not state any register or model number, does not use the phrase “atti relativi a,” attributes no statement to the Rome prosecutor’s office and records no refusal to comment by it. https://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/2026/09/05/procura-roma-epstein-files-fascicolo-notizie/8497385/ ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵

3. L’Indipendente, Enrica Perucchietti, “Epstein, la Procura di Roma indaga sulla rete italiana e chiede gli atti segreti agli USA,” 6 September 2026, 17:08, read 27 October 2026. It states: “La Procura di Roma ha aperto un fascicolo per l’ipotesi di violenza sessuale”; “L’indagine, coordinata dal procuratore aggiunto Maurizio Arcuri, è per ora contro ignoti”; “nessun italiano risulta formalmente indagato”; “La rogatoria è stata trasmessa agli Stati Uniti già diversi mesi fa”; “Roma compare 3.593 volte, Capri 253, Amalfi 44, Ischia 12 e la Costa Smeralda tre”; and “L’associazione ha allegato le ricorrenze estratte dal database del Dipartimento di Giustizia.” It cites no register or model number, attributes the timing of the letter rogatory to no source, and carries no statement from the Rome prosecutor’s office or from the US Department of Justice. https://www.lindipendente.online/2026/09/06/epstein-la-procura-di-roma-indaga-sulla-rete-italiana-e-chiede-gli-atti-segreti-agli-usa/ ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶ ↩⁷

4. Open, Alba Romano, “Caso Epstein, la procura di Roma indaga sugli italiani presenti nei file,” 5 September 2026, 10:53, read 27 October 2026. Subheading: “L’indagine, coordinata dal procuratore aggiunto Maurizio Arcuri, nasce dall’esposto presentato il 26 marzo da Differenza Donna.” It states “La procura di Roma ha aperto formalmente un fascicolo sugli Epstein Files per l’ipotesi di violenza sessuale,” that the office “ha trasmesso una rogatoria al Dipartimento di Giustizia degli Stati Uniti” “nei giorni scorsi,” and that the purpose is to “accertare se cittadini italiani all’estero oppure persone che abbiano agito sul territorio nazionale possano essere coinvolti.” It attributes those details to La Repubblica (“scrive la Repubblica”). It states no register or model number, does not say whether anyone is entered in the register of persons under investigation, and carries no statement from the Rome prosecutor’s office or the US Department of Justice. https://www.open.online/2026/09/05/epstein-files-procura-roma-indagine-italiani/ ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶ ↩⁷ ↩⁸ ↩⁹ ↩¹⁰

5. Il Tempo, Pina Sereni, “Epstein Files, anche la Procura di Roma apre un’inchiesta per violenza sessuale,” 5 September 2026, 11:03, read 27 October 2026. It names “Maurizio Arcuri, ‘procuratore aggiunto’,” as coordinating the investigation; dates the complaint to 26 March and attributes it to Differenza Donna, quoting its request as covering “possibili reati transnazionali di tratta, violenze sessuali”; reports the letter rogatory as recently sent by the Procura di Roma to the US Department of Justice for the documentation including material not yet made public; and attributes the news to Giuseppe Scarpa in La Repubblica. It carries no agency credit, and does not state the procedural register or whether the file is against unknown persons. https://www.iltempo.it/attualita/2026/09/05/news/procura-roma-inchiesta-epstein-files-violenza-sessuale-rogatoria-usa-atti-secretati-49051708/ ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴

6. Marco Misiti, “A volte si sente parlare, con riferimento a possibili reati, della iscrizione della notizia in vari modelli. Che cosa sono?”, GiuridicaMente, 27 June 2024, read 27 October 2026. It defines modello 21 as for “fatti che costituiscono notizia di reato nei confronti di soggetti noti”; modello 44 as for “notizie di reato a carico di soggetti ignoti,” the register indicated where the author is unknown; and modello 45 as for “fatti che non costituiscono notizie di reato.” It ties the status of indagato to the existence of indizi: an entry is made “a carico di una persona determinata (ossia, l’indagato) quando risultano esistenti indizi nei suoi confronti.” The page does not state whether a person whose matter is entered in modello 45 is an indagato, and does not mention modello 21-bis. The English renderings in the body above are this page’s own. No source cited on this page states which register the Rome file was entered in. ↩ ↩²

7. ANSA, “Redazione ANSA,” “Epstein Files, Differenza Donna presenta un esposto alla Procura di Roma,” 31 March 2026, 10:32, read 27 October 2026; the page carries no city dateline. It states that “L’Associazione Differenza Donna” “ha presentato il 26 marzo un esposto formale alla Procura della Repubblica presso il Tribunale di Roma,” “redatto dalle avvocate Maria Teresa Manente e Iaria Boiano,” “responsabili dell’ufficio legale dell’associazione,” “chiedendo l’avvio di indagini approfondite in relazione ai cosiddetti ‘Epstein Files’” and specifically “l’avvio di indagini su possibili reati transnazionali di tratta, violenze sessuali e sfruttamento sessuale,” “per accertare se il territorio italiano sia stato luogo di transito,” “di consumazione o di facilitazione dei reati connessi alla rete Epstein.” Among the requests: “di attivare una rogatoria internazionale tramite il DOJ per ottenere i file non censurati relativi ai soggetti italiani”; “disporre accertamenti sui flussi finanziari tra Epstein e soggetti italiani,” “anche attraverso la Unità di Informazione Finanziaria e la Guardia di Finanza”; “verificare la posizione delle società Harbour Avenue e Harbour V,” “con sede a Londra e riconducibili a persone italiane”; “identificare e ascoltare eventuali vittime italiane o residenti in Italia”; and “coordinarsi con le autorità giudiziarie britanniche che stanno già indagando.” It names Italian places cited in the complaint as “Capri, la Costiera Amalfitana, la Costa Smeralda, Milano e Roma,” and the source of the underlying documents as the “Dipartimento di Giustizia degli Stati Uniti d’America.” The page prints the second lawyer’s name as “Iaria Boiano” at the drafting line and as “Ilaria Boiano” in the quotations. https://www.ansa.it/donne/notizie/2026/03/30/epstein-files-differenza-donna-presenta-un-esposto-alla-procura-di-roma_27babcf0-0b96-43a2-a2cf-f6aa685be875.html ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶ ↩⁷

8. Avvenire, Elisa Campisi, “L’esposto alla Procura di Roma: così il caso Epstein è arrivato in Italia,” 31 March 2026, read 27 October 2026. It states that Differenza Donna “presentato un esposto formale alla Procura della Repubblica presso il Tribunale di Roma,” “presentato il 26 marzo” with no year given; that it was drafted by “le avvocate Maria Teresa Manente e Iaria Boiano, responsabili dell’Ufficio Legale,” the report later printing “Ilaria Boiano”; and that the complaint asks the prosecutors to “attivare una rogatoria internazionale tramite il Doj per ottenere i file non censurati relativi ai soggetti italiani,” to “disporre accertamenti sui flussi finanziari,” to “verificare la posizione delle società Harbour Avenue e Harbour V” and to “coordinarsi con le autorità giudiziarie britanniche.” It quotes the complaint’s own phrases “ricorrenze di soggetti italiani,” “riferimenti significativi e non episodici di soggiorni,” “per accertare se il territorio italiano sia stato luogo di transito” and “l’avvio di indagini su possibili reati transnazionali di tratta,” and names “Capri, la Costiera Amalfitana, la Costa Smeralda, Milano e Roma.” It gives no page or paragraph count for the complaint, uses none of the terms “modello 45,” “modello 44,” “modello 21,” “atti relativi a” or “contro ignoti,” and carries no statement from the Rome prosecutor’s office and no refusal to comment. https://www.avvenire.it/attualita/lesposto-alla-procura-di-roma-cosi-il-caso-epstein-e-arrivato-in-italia_106554 ↩ ↩² ↩³

9. Quotidiano Nazionale, “Redazione Roma,” “Epstein Files, la procura di Roma apre un fascicolo per violenza sessuale. Si indaga su eventuali legami con l’Italia,” dateline “Roma, 5 settembre 2026,” read 27 October 2026. It states that the prosecutors opened “un fascicolo per l’ipotesi di violenza sessuale”; that “L’indagine è coordinata dal procuratore aggiunto Maurizio Arcuri”; that the office “ha trasmesso una rogatoria al Dipartimento di Giustizia degli Stati Uniti,” timed only as “Nei giorni scorsi”; and that the complaint was “esposto presentato il 26 marzo 2026” by the “Rete Nazionale dei Centri Antiviolenza” of Differenza Donna. It names no drafter, gives no count of Italian names or places, carries no statement from the prosecutors, and writes its account in the conditional (“sarebbe”), resting the remainder on the association’s communiqué. https://www.quotidiano.net/roma/epstein-files-inchiesta-procura-roma-esposto-g5v1vi7r ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶

10. Searches of the open web run for this page on 27 October 2026 under the prosecutor’s office’s own name together with the Epstein material, including a search for its press releases, returned press coverage only; no page published by the office appeared in the results, and nothing published by the office was located or read. That is a statement about what these searches returned and not a claim that the office has published nothing. Of the reports cited on this page, Il Fatto Quotidiano, L’Indipendente, Open, Quotidiano Nazionale, Avvenire and La Freccia Web each carry no statement attributed to the Rome prosecutor’s office and none records a refusal by it to comment. ↩ ↩²

11. l’Adige, carrying the ANSA dispatch “Epstein, indagine della procura di Roma sugli italiani nei file,” subheading “Rogatoria per chiedere agli Usa gli atti segreti,” 5 September 2026, 08:53, read 27 October 2026. The text opens “(ANSA) - ROMA, 05 SET -”. It states “La procura di Roma ha aperto formalmente un fascicolo sugli Epstein Files per l’ipotesi di violenza sessuale”; that the investigation is “coordinata dal procuratore aggiunto Maurizio Arcuri”; that the office “ha trasmesso una rogatoria al Dipartimento di Giustizia degli Stati Uniti”; that the inquiry “nasce dall’esposto presentato il 26 marzo da Differenza Donna”; and, of the source, “scrive la Repubblica che riporta in prima pagina la notizia.” It states no register or model number and does not use the phrase “contro ignoti.” https://www.ladige.it/attualita/epstein-indagine-della-procura-di-roma-sugli-italiani-nei-file-iu357ob0 ↩

12. Agenzia DIRE, “Epstein files, la Procura di Roma indaga sui possibili collegamenti italiani con il sistema di sfruttamento sessuale,” 5 September 2026, 12:15, updated 12:22, read 27 October 2026; no individual byline, the text attributed to a press release (“È quanto si legge in un comunicato”). It describes the file as opened “al momento contro ignoti,” names no magistrate, does not use the word “rogatoria” and reports instead that the office “avrebbe chiesto al Dipartimento di Giustizia degli Stati Uniti di acquisire la documentazione.” Its subheading places the opening “dopo l’esposto presentato dalla Rete Nazionale dei Centri antiviolenza di Differenza Donna.” It quotes the association’s president Elisa Ercoli, “Abbiamo ritenuto necessario chiedere che anche in Italia venissero svolti tutti gli accertamenti possibili”; the two lawyers of its legal office, Teresa Manente and Ilaria Boiano, that a name in a document or association with Epstein “non costituiscono, di per sé, prova di responsabilità penale,” and “Il punto centrale resta la posizione delle vittime.” It gives no count of Italian names or places and mentions no register or model number. https://www.dire.it/05-09-2026/1264856-epstein-files-la-procura-di-roma-indaga-sui-possibili-collegamenti-italiani-con-il-sistema-di-sfruttamento-sessuale ↩ ↩²

13. Francesco Mazzarella, “Epstein Files, ora anche l’Italia chiede gli atti segreti: la trasparenza alla prova della giustizia,” La Freccia Web, 10 September 2026, read 27 October 2026. It reports that “La Procura di Roma ha aperto un fascicolo, al momento contro ignoti, sugli Epstein Files” and names the coordinating magistrate, “coordinata dal procuratore aggiunto Maurizio Arcuri,” without attributing either statement to a source; it names ANSA and RaiNews among its own sources. On other jurisdictions it states that “La Procura nazionale polacca ha chiesto, tra l’altro, documenti non oscurati,” that “L’unità norvegese per i reati economici Økokrim ha confermato di avere richiesto materiale agli Stati Uniti,” that “la polizia lettone ha riferito di avere inviato più richieste di assistenza giudiziaria” “senza avere ancora ricevuto risposta,” that “Anche le autorità britanniche hanno cercato di ottenere documentazione originale e non oscurata,” and that “Diverse autorità europee sostengono di non avere ancora ottenuto il materiale richiesto.” On the Department of Justice it states that “Il Dipartimento di Giustizia statunitense non afferma di avere rifiutato la cooperazione” and that it “Ha dichiarato di non commentare lo stato delle singole richieste di assistenza giudiziaria,” without tying that statement specifically to the Italian request. Of the Italian letter rogatory it says only that the office “ha trasmesso una rogatoria alle autorità statunitensi,” with no date. It names no treaty or statutory basis for the request, and carries no statement attributed to the Rome prosecutor’s office. https://www.lafrecciaweb.it/2026/09/10/epstein-files-ora-anche-litalia-chiede-gli-atti-segreti-la-trasparenza-alla-prova-della-giustizia/ ↩

14. Maegan Vazquez, “Europeans investigating Epstein say DOJ has not agreed to requests for help,” Washington Post, 9 September 2026, read 27 October 2026 in the Spokesman-Review republication dated 10 September 2026 and updated 9:22 p.m., datelined Berlin. The article reports that “The Justice Department has not responded to Warsaw’s request in April for mutual legal assistance,” per the Polish prosecutor’s office spokesman Przemysław Nowak; quotes the Økokrim prosecutor Marianne Bender that “they have not at this time approved the request” and that “We are in communication with officials from the Department of Justice”; quotes the Latvian State Police spokeswoman Simona Gravite that “no responses have yet been received”; reports, citing the Telegraph, that “the Justice Department and the FBI had not responded to the formal request related to Mandelson”; and describes German federal police contact with the FBI without describing a request for mutual legal assistance. It states that “The Justice Department said it doesn’t comment on the status of mutual legal assistance requests with foreign law enforcement partners,” and carries a Department spokesman’s earlier statement to the Telegraph that “The Department of Justice has not refused to assist any jurisdiction investigating potential criminal conduct related to Jeffrey Epstein,” continuing “The department remains committed to cooperating with all jurisdictions pursuing potential crimes and will continue to do so in accordance with federal law and longstanding practice.” It records that “The legal process for obtaining evidence and information through a mutual legal assistance request can be cumbersome and take weeks or months, officials say.” Neither Italy nor Rome is mentioned anywhere in the article. https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2026/sep/10/europeans-investigating-epstein-say-doj-has-not-ag/ ↩ ↩² ↩³

15. Letter from Jamie Raskin, Ranking Member, House Committee on the Judiciary, to the Honorable Todd W. Blanche, Attorney General, and Major General Vaughn A. Ary, USMC (Ret.), Director, Office of International Affairs, U.S. Department of Justice, dated October 21, 2026, four pages, copied to Chairman Jim Jordan; read in full on 27 October 2026 from the Committee Democrats’ own posting of the document. Quoted above: its opening question; “According to public reporting, DOJ is obstructing the efforts of both the United Kingdom (U.K.) and the State of New Mexico to investigate individuals associated with Epstein”; and request 1, “All records and correspondence regarding Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty requests from foreign countries seeking DOJ assistance with investigations into potential co-conspirators of Jeffrey Epstein, including records sufficient to identify the individuals or investigations to which those requests relate.” The letter sets a response deadline of “5:00 p.m. on November 4, 2026.” Its other factual statements cited above: that in the Administration’s first weeks “DOJ shut down an active probe conducted by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York” (n.1); that on July 6, 2025 the Department and the FBI “jointly issued an unsigned memo” claiming there was no “evidence that could predicate an investigation against uncharged third parties” (n.2); that “New Mexico re-opened its criminal investigation and searched Epstein’s Zorro Ranch” (n.9, citing Time of March 10, 2026); that New Mexico sued the Department, New Mexico v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, No. 1:26-cv-02762 (D.D.C. filed Aug. 5, 2026) (n.10); that on April 23, 2026 it was reported that, when British authorities requested mutual legal assistance for “their investigation into Peter Mandelson, former British Ambassador to the United States and a close associate of Jeffrey Epstein,” the Department “blocked” their probe and “refused to hand over key evidence contained in the Epstein files” (n.14, citing the Telegraph); and that the British investigation was reported on August 21, 2026 to be “at risk of collapse” (n.15). Its authority for the European position is the Washington Post article cited above (n.9). Italy, Rome and the Procura di Roma are named nowhere in the letter. https://democrats-judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/democrats-judiciary.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/2026-10-21-raskin-to-blanche-ary-doj-re-epstein-mlat-obstruction.pdf ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶ ↩⁷