Has any law enforcement agency publicly confirmed receiving the Sasha/Sascha Riley audio or launched an investigation tied to it?

1. What the audio claim is and who released it

The recordings in question — six audio files attributed to a man called Sasha or Sascha Riley — were published by Substack user Lisa Noelle Voldeng, who says she conducted phone interviews in July 2025 and possesses the original, unedited files, and claims to have shared copies with police and "trusted contacts" in several countries ^{[2] [3] [4]}.

2. What mainstream reporting says about law enforcement contact

Major outlets covering the story uniformly note that the recordings and the allegations within them have not been authenticated by courts, law enforcement agencies, or reputable news organizations; those outlets report the publisher's claims about sharing files with authorities but do not find confirmations from any agency that it has received the audio or is investigating because of it ^{[1] [5] [6] [7]}.

3. Publisher claims versus independent confirmation

While the publisher asserts that she shared the audio with police and that "investigations are underway" and that some copies went to contacts abroad, the available reporting makes clear that those assertions have not been corroborated by independent documentation or by any named law-enforcement spokespersons quoted in the coverage ^{[3] [2] [4]}.

4. What fact‑checkers and secondary reporting add

Fact‑checking and broader coverage emphasize the absence of authenticated corroboration in court filings, indictments, or the released DOJ documents tied to Jeffrey Epstein, and note critics' concerns about inconsistencies and the potential for unverified testimony to spread rapidly online; these reports do not identify any agency-confirmed receipt or investigation stemming from the Riley audio ^{[1] [5] [7] [8]}.

5. One ambiguous thread in the reporting

Some reporting references that copies were "reportedly shared with law enforcement" or that the publisher told reporters she shared them, language that outlets attribute to the publisher rather than to agencies themselves; that distinction undercuts claims of official investigative action because no agency is publicly quoted as having received the material or opening a case as a result ^{[3] [2] [4]}.

6. Limits of the public record and what remains unknown

The public record assembled by the cited reporting does not document any law‑enforcement press release, statement, or court filing confirming receipt or a new investigation tied to the audio, and the reporting acknowledges heavy redactions in some released Epstein files and gaps that limit verification efforts; thus an absence of public confirmation is clear, but reporting cannot prove categorically that no agency anywhere has privately received the files or begun preliminary inquiries without announcing them ^{[5] [8] [2]}.

7. Assessment: how to interpret the discrepancy between claims and confirmations

Given a consistent pattern in the coverage — publisher claims of sharing versus independent outlets finding no official confirmations — the responsible conclusion is that no law‑enforcement agency has publicly confirmed receiving the Riley audio or launching an investigation tied to it; assertions to the contrary rest on the publisher's statements and remain unverified by independent sources ^{[1] [5] [3]}.

8. Why this matters and how readers should proceed

The episode illustrates how serious allegations can propagate before vetting: publishers can claim to have shared material with authorities while agencies may refrain from public comment or have no involvement; therefore readers and reporters should seek direct statements from named agencies or court filings before treating such material as validated evidence ^{[2] [7] [6]}.