Which officials or agencies controlled Epstein files after his 2008 and 2019 arrests

1. Who held Epstein’s files after the 2008 plea deal — a closed Florida trail that still matters

The 2008 prosecution culminated in a state plea and a controversial federal non‑prosecution agreement negotiated by prosecutors based in South Florida, which placed primary responsibility for the original investigative files with the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Southern District of Florida and local Palm Beach prosecutors and law enforcement. Court dockets from related civil suits in the Southern District of Florida show judicial involvement by Judge Kenneth A. Marra in subsequent civil litigation over victims’ claims, but the underlying criminal investigative records were created and controlled by the Florida‑area prosecutors who negotiated and implemented the 2008 agreements. That 2008 custody arrangement and the hidden terms of the non‑prosecution agreement later became the focus of Justice Department review and congressional scrutiny after new allegations resurfaced ^{[5] [1] [3]}.

2. Who took charge after the 2019 federal indictment — Manhattan took the lead

When federal authorities in New York arrested Epstein in July 2019, authority over the new charging documents, investigative grand‑jury materials, and custody of evidence shifted to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, backed by the FBI and the NYPD. The unsealed indictment announced by U.S. Attorney Geoffrey Berman was the operative charging instrument in Manhattan, and the FBI and NYPD played investigative and arrest roles; the case was assigned to a federal district judge in Manhattan for pretrial proceedings. That change in prosecutorial locus meant the SDNY controlled the 2019 case files, evidence inventories, and court filings, distinct from the earlier Florida files even as the new investigation referenced alleged conduct in both New York and Florida ^{[2] [6]}.

3. DOJ internal reviews and the Office of Professional Responsibility — who audited the auditors

Following public outrage over the 2008 agreement, the Justice Department’s internal review mechanisms — most prominently the Office of Professional Responsibility — examined the handling of the earlier case, producing findings and summaries (including a 2020 OPR review that criticized decisions made by then‑Miami U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta). These reviews placed copies and summaries of investigative decisions within DOJ components, which then determined what, if anything, could be released publicly. The existence of such reviews means custody of derivative material moved into institutional oversight units of DOJ even as original investigative files remained in the case offices; those oversight conclusions later informed both DOJ public statements and congressional demands for broader disclosure ^{[3] [7]}.

4. Congressional subpoenas, public demand and contested releases — politics meets paperwork

From 2019 into the mid‑2020s, House committees and individual lawmakers repeatedly sought access to Epstein‑related records, issuing subpoenas and demanding production from DOJ and other federal agencies; these actions meant custody and control became contested between the executive branch and Congress. Some congressional actors framed release efforts as transparency demands, while others sought selective disclosure to support political narratives; DOJ responses at times refused broad disclosure, citing investigatory and privacy concerns. By mid‑2025 several public timelines and DOJ memos addressed the status of files and whether additional release was appropriate, illustrating that legal control did not necessarily equate to unimpeded public access ^{[4] [7]}.

5. Alternative viewpoints and potential agendas that shape claims about “who controls” the files

Observers differ on whether files remain improperly withheld. One view emphasizes bureaucratic custody: investigative files are held by the agency that opened the probe (SD Florida for 2008, SDNY/FBI/NYPD for 2019) and by DOJ oversight offices that review prosecutorial choices. Another view suggests partisan or institutional agendas have delayed disclosure, pointing to congressional maneuvers and public statements by advocates demanding files be released to expose alleged misconduct. These competing frames reflect differing aims — accountability, prosecutorial confidentiality, or political advantage — and explain why control of files has been both legal custody and a public flashpoint ^{[3] [4] [8]}.

6. What remains clear and what remains unresolved in the custody trail

The factual custody trail shows a sequence: Florida prosecutors and law enforcement handled the original 2007–2008 investigation and associated records, SDNY and federal investigators controlled the 2019 case files, and DOJ internal units plus congressional oversight mechanisms later reviewed and sought those records. What remains unresolved in public records is the full contents of all investigative files and the exact inventories released or withheld at each handoff; multiple reviews and public timelines through 2025 explain custody but also reveal persistent gaps that drove calls for further transparency and legal fights over disclosure ^{[1] [2] [8]}.