Have any law enforcement agencies publicly acknowledged receiving evidence linked to the Sascha Riley recordings?

1. What the recordings are and who published them

The material at the center of the controversy consists of several hours of audio attributed to a person calling themself Sasha/Sascha Riley and was published on Substack by writer Lisa Noelle Voldeng, who says she conducted phone interviews and posted the unedited files online ^{[4] [5]}; news summaries emphasize that the clips make grave allegations tied to the Jeffrey Epstein saga but are circulating without independent verification ^{[6] [7]}.

2. Publisher’s claim of sharing copies with police and allies

Voldeng’s account — repeated in reporting about the Substack release — states she retained original audio files and “shared copies with police and ‘trusted allies’ in several countries,” an assertion reported by Times Now but framed as the publisher’s claim rather than an independently confirmed fact ^{[4] [5]}; Hindustan Times similarly relays that the publisher said she contacted officials after first speaking with Riley ^[8].

3. Reports that the FBI contacted Riley — and why that is not the same as public acknowledgment

Some fringe or self-published accounts claim the FBI contacted Riley in the summer of 2025 and that Riley provided records and notebooks to investigators, but those accounts are not corroborated by mainstream reporting and are presented as unverified narrative rather than confirmed agency statements ^[9]; even where contact is alleged, the publications caveat that courts and law enforcement have not independently verified the recordings or tied them to prosecutions or public case files ^{[4] [7]}.

4. Mainstream outlets and verification standards: no public law-enforcement confirmation

A consistent through-line across multiple mainstream and investigative write-ups is that “not a single one of the claims has been authenticated by any courts of law and law enforcement agencies or reputable news organizations” and that there is “no public record of formal charges stemming from the recordings,” language used to frame the current evidentiary blank slate ^{[6] [7] [3]}.

5. Why the difference between private contact and public acknowledgment matters

Even if a reporter or publisher says material was “shared with police,” that is not equivalent to an agency publicly acknowledging receipt or opening an investigation; independent reporting repeatedly distinguishes the publisher’s claims from an official agency confirmation, noting that absence of an authenticated chain of custody, forensic audio analysis, or public statements from agencies leaves the recordings as unverified allegations ^{[5] [3]}.

6. Conclusion — what can be asserted with confidence and what remains opaque

On the available reporting, it can be stated with confidence that no law enforcement body has publicly confirmed receiving or authenticating evidence tied to the Riley recordings and that major outlets continue to flag the material as unverified; assertions that police or the FBI were privately shown copies originate from the Substack publisher or less-established accounts and have not been independently corroborated by law enforcement spokespeople or court records ^{[1] [4] [8] [3]}.