Have any law-enforcement agencies publicly acknowledged receiving or investigating the Sascha/Sasha Riley recordings?
Executive summary
No federal, state, or local law‑enforcement agency has publicly confirmed receiving the Sasha/Sascha (also spelled Sasha) Riley audio recordings or launched an investigation attributable to those tapes; mainstream reporting and multiple outlets describe the recordings as unverified and say there is no public record of law‑enforcement authentication or charges stemming from them [1] [2] [3]. The primary public trace of contact with authorities comes from the Substack publisher Lisa Noelle Voldeng and related secondary reporting, which say copies were shared with police and that the FBI “allegedly” contacted Riley — claims those outlets relay but do not treat as independently verified by official agencies [4] [5] [6].
1. What the publisher says was done with the recordings
Lisa Noelle Voldeng, the Substack user who released the recordings, states she interviewed Riley and asserts she possesses original, unedited audio files and has shared copies with police, “trusted contacts” and government officials in several countries; some outlets relay Voldeng’s account that she alerted allies and authorities and that the FBI allegedly contacted Riley in summer 2025 [6] [4] [5]. Reporting reiterates Voldeng’s claim that material was circulated “in the interest of the public,” and that Riley indicated a willingness to testify or submit to a polygraph, but these are representations from the publisher rather than confirmations from law‑enforcement institutions [7] [8].
2. What news organizations and fact checks report about law‑enforcement responses
Multiple news reports explicitly state the same core fact: the recordings and the claims contained within them have not been authenticated by courts or law enforcement, and there is no public record of formal criminal proceedings tied to the audio [1] [3] [2]. Outlets such as Hindustan Times, Times Now, Filmogaz and the Sunday Guardian make clear that while copies may have been circulated privately or “shared” by the publisher, no official investigative body has publicly acknowledged receipt, verification, or an active probe linked to the recordings [6] [3] [7] [2].
3. The difference between claimed contact and official confirmation
There is a consistent distinction across reporting between the publisher’s account that she shared files with law‑enforcement and formal, documentable acknowledgement from agencies; that distinction matters because institutions typically confirm only certain investigative steps publicly, and independent verification by courts or established newsrooms is the usual threshold for treating extraordinary allegations as part of an active criminal inquiry [5] [1]. Several outlets repeat Voldeng’s and Riley’s statements about contacts with police or the FBI but stop short of treating those statements as proof that an investigation has been opened or that law enforcement has authenticated the audio [4] [6].
4. Why public acknowledgment might be absent and what that implies
Public law‑enforcement silence can reflect several realities reported in these pieces: agencies may be assessing material quietly, may decline comment on potential or preliminary inquiries, or may not have received files in a way that prompts a public statement — but reporting does not provide direct evidence for any of those explanations, only that no agency has publicly confirmed receiving or investigating the Riley recordings as of the dates covered [7] [2]. The absence of confirmation underscores why news outlets and analysts repeatedly flag the recordings as unverified and caution against treating them as established facts absent official disclosure or court filings [3] [1].
5. What to watch next and reporting limitations
Future pivot points that would change the public record include an explicit agency statement acknowledging receipt or an opened case, court filings that reference the recordings, forensic authentication of the audio by independent experts, or established media outlets documenting corroborating records; none of those exist in the cited reports, which themselves rely heavily on the publisher’s claims and on Riley’s offered documents but do not substitute for official confirmation [8] [9] [2]. Reporting limitations are clear: the available sources repeatedly note the recordings remain unverified and that no law‑enforcement body has publicly taken credit for an investigation tied explicitly to these tapes [1] [7].