What criteria did the Epstein estate use to verify victim identities for compensation?

1. Independent administrator, not the estate: who set the rules?

The central structural criterion was institutional: eligibility and compensation decisions were vested exclusively in the program administrator, Jordana H. Feldman, and the protocol she applied, rather than in Epstein’s executors. The program website and reporting state that Feldman “retains complete and exclusive authority to determine eligibility and compensation” and that the estate “cannot reject or modify any eligibility or compensation determination” ^[1]. Multiple news outlets and legal summaries reaffirm that the program was designed and run independently to insulate claim evaluation from estate interference ^{[4] [3]}.

2. What claimants had to show: injury tied to abuse

Legal analysis and commentary from lawyers involved in the process describe the substantive test as showing physical or psychological injury caused by sexual encounters with Epstein or his alleged co‑conspirators. Spencer Kuvin, an attorney who advised claimants, explained that claimants needed to demonstrate harm “either with evidence, or in some cases anecdotally,” meaning the program accommodated both documentary proof and credible personal testimony ^[2]. The Crime Victim Law Firm summary likewise notes claim evaluations followed set protocols and assessed sexual‑abuse and related claims ^[3].

3. Who was eligible: timing, prior suits and identification

Eligibility rules limited participation to people who had been identified to the Administrator or who had filed legal claims on or before the program’s effective date (June 25, 2020) — for example, individuals who had filed lawsuits or otherwise been identified as victims were eligible to participate ^[1]. Media reporting and the program’s public materials describe outreach to more than 100 potential claimants and note the program accepted claims from survivors regardless of when the alleged abuse occurred ^{[4] [2]}.

4. Evidence standards: documents, testimony, and tailored protocols

The program borrowed designs from prior high‑profile funds (9/11, Catholic Church abuse funds) and therefore applied tailored protocols for assessing claims. These protocols allowed a mix of supporting evidence — medical records, contemporaneous communications, affidavits, witness statements — and in some cases persuasive anecdotal or testimonial accounts to substantiate injury and connection to Epstein ^{[2] [3] [1]}. Reporting underscores that the fund was “non‑adversarial” and sought to be victim‑oriented, implying a lower‑formality claims process than typical adversarial litigation ^{[5] [1]}.

5. Confidentiality, releases and waivers shaped claimant choices

A key non‑evidentiary criterion was the claimant’s willingness to accept an award and sign associated releases: only claimants who accepted the offered compensation agreed to waive further litigation rights against the estate and related entities as set out in the Release ^[1]. ABC News and other outlets noted the fund’s confidentiality and the fact that participation was voluntary; some applicants rejected awards and resumed litigation instead ^{[6] [5]}.

6. Oversight, consultation with victims’ counsel and a government role

Design and approval of the program involved consultation among the estate, victims’ attorneys, and the U.S. Virgin Islands attorney general, and renowned claims‑administration experts (Kenneth Feinberg, Camille Biros) advised the scheme ^{[7] [1] [5]}. That involvement shaped eligibility parameters and reportedly led to reforms the Virgin Islands’ attorney general sought to make the process “more fair, credible, and victim‑oriented” ^[5].

7. Outcomes that reflect the protocol: pay rates, numbers, and acceptance

The evaluation protocol produced awards ultimately totaling roughly $121–125 million to about 150 survivors, with more than 92% of approved claimants accepting offers — a practical indication that the criteria and evidence thresholds led to compensated claims at scale ^{[6] [8]}. The program’s administrators emphasized the estate paid awards based on the administrator’s determinations and could not veto them ^{[1] [6]}.

8. Limitations, critiques and alternative paths

Reporting and legal commentary note limits: some attorneys and victims argued awards were insufficient relative to the estate’s size, and a small number of claimants declined offers to pursue litigation instead, signaling disagreements over valuation and the tradeoff of a release for certainty ^{[9] [6]}. Additionally, some advocates later questioned whether estate executors accurately represented assets during negotiations — a concern that could affect perceived fairness but is framed in those sources as a separate inquiry ^[8]. Available sources do not mention precise per‑claim evidentiary checklists or the detailed scoring rubric used by the administrator; the program protocol is referenced but its full internal matrix is not reproduced in the cited reporting ^{[1] [3]}.

Bottom line: The Epstein VCP relied principally on an independent administrator and a protocol that accepted documentary and testimonial proof of physical or psychological injury tied to encounters with Epstein or his associates; participation required acceptance of a release, and the estate lacked the power to overturn eligibility or awards ^{[1] [2] [3]}.