Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What agencies led evidence collection in the Epstein investigations and who maintained chain-of-custody records?
Executive summary
Investigations into Jeffrey Epstein were led principally by the FBI (including its New York field office) and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York (SDNY); those agencies produced the bulk of what reporters and lawmakers call the “Epstein files,” which the Justice Department and Congress have fought over releasing [1][2]. The Department of Justice says it and the FBI currently maintain custody of those investigative records in their systems (including the FBI’s Sentinel case-management repository), while congressional committees have obtained and released some estate documents and DOJ-produced pages under subpoena or statutory compulsion [1][3][2].
1. Who led the criminal investigations — official law‑enforcement leadership
Federal prosecutors and FBI agents ran the major criminal inquiries: the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York prosecuted Epstein and his associates, and FBI New York carried out the follow‑on investigations and compiled investigative reports and interview memoranda [4] that now constitute much of the disputed “files” [1]. The DOJ has publicly described the records as originating from FBI field offices (Miami and New York) and from SDNY investigative work [1].
2. Where the evidence and records are held right now — custody and systems
Available reporting identifies the Department of Justice and the FBI as the agencies that have had custody of the core investigative materials; journalists say the FBI stores the records in its Sentinel case-management system and that the DOJ has produced batches of documents from its holdings when compelled or at its discretion [1][5]. The DOJ also released a first phase of declassified files in February 2025 and later provided thousands of pages to House committees under subpoena [5][3].
3. Who maintained chain‑of‑custody records — what sources say and what they do not
None of the provided sources supply a named list of individual custodians or explicit chain‑of‑custody logs (who signed for specific physical items, when evidence was transferred, or exact custody trails). Reporting instead describes institutional custody: the FBI and DOJ maintained the physical and digital holdings as part of standard investigative practice, and the FBI’s electronic systems (Sentinel) are cited as the repository for digital evidence and reports [1]. Available sources do not mention detailed chain‑of‑custody records for specific items or identify the specific personnel who logged transfers.
4. Congressional access and third‑party releases — who else handled materials
The House Oversight Committee released tens of thousands of pages it obtained from Epstein’s estate and received additional DOJ‑provided records after subpoenas; those committee disclosures complicate the custody picture because some materials originated with the private estate rather than law enforcement [3][1]. Congress has also pressed the DOJ to publish more of its files via the Epstein Files Transparency Act (H.R. 4405), which would require the DOJ to publish unclassified investigative materials — but the bill recognizes exceptions for ongoing investigations and privacy protections [2][6].
5. Disputes, redactions and the limits of public reporting
Justice Department and FBI officials have defended withholding or redacting materials on grounds including victim privacy, child‑abuse material protections, and potential interference with investigations — arguments made repeatedly in news coverage and DOJ statements [5][6]. Media reporting documents institutional claims of exhaustive reviews (some outlets note thousands of agents reviewed records), but it does not publish internal chain‑of‑custody documents showing who physically handled or logged each piece of evidence [7][1]. Where sources contradict, it is over release policy and completeness of disclosure, not over which agencies led the probes [6][5].
6. Why chain‑of‑custody specifics matter — and why they remain opaque
Chain‑of‑custody records would be central to litigation or criminal prosecutions challenging evidence integrity; reporters and advocates say privacy laws, sealed court orders and the presence of child‑sexual‑abuse material mean many records remain redacted or withheld, which also hides some operational details like evidence transfer logs [1][6]. Critics argue that “national security” or internal‑use exemptions can be wielded to shield agency records; defenders say such protections prevent harm to victims and ongoing probes [7][6].
7. Bottom line and gaps in public reporting
The FBI and SDNY (DOJ) led the official investigations and hold the principal investigative files in FBI systems and DOJ custody; congressional committees have obtained and released estate documents and some DOJ records under subpoena or statute [1][3][2]. However, the public record in the provided sources does not list specific chain‑of‑custody logs or name the individuals who maintained them — available sources do not mention those itemized custody records [1]. Journalists and lawmakers are fighting over release and redaction standards; whether the public will ever see item‑level custody trails depends on what the DOJ and courts decide under the new law and ongoing privacy and investigatory carve‑outs [2][6].