Latest / Beyond The Horizon / The USVI And Their Motion To Exclude JP Morgan's Expert Witnesses (Part 3) (11/2/26)

Transcript

The USVI And Their Motion To Exclude JP Morgan's Expert Witnesses (Part 3) (11/2/26) · Beyond The Horizon

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: What's up everyone, and welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles.
• 0:04
  Speaker 1: In this episode, we're going to pick up where we
• 0:06
  Speaker 1: left off with the USVI and their attempt to keep
• 0:10
  Speaker 1: expert opinions out in the lawsuit with J.P. Morgan. 2.
• 0:16
  Speaker 1: The court should strike the proposed expert opinions of Joseph Fonseca. J.P.
• 0:20
  Speaker 1: Morgan disputes that its conduct harmed or threatened the government's
• 0:23
  Speaker 1: interest in assuring the safety and well-being of its residents.
• 0:27
  Speaker 1: In support of this position, J.P. Morgan... relies on the
• 0:30
  Speaker 1: opinions of Joseph Fonseca, who J.P. Morgan proffers as an
• 0:34
  Speaker 1: expert on child sex trafficking investigations. Mr. Fonseca opines that
• 0:39
  Speaker 1: redacted and that financial records are of limited utility in
• 0:43
  Speaker 1: trafficking investigations. Mr. Fonseca's primary asserted basis for being qualified
• 0:49
  Speaker 1: to provide these opinions and for the opinions themselves is
• 0:53
  Speaker 1: his personal experience and knowledge as a former Federal Bureau
• 0:56
  Speaker 1: of Investigation special agent. Mr. Fonseca's experience, however, is inadequate
• 1:02
  Speaker 1: in two ways critical to these opinions. First, he opines
• 1:05
  Speaker 1: that financial records and information are unimportant to trafficking investigations,
• 1:11
  Speaker 1: but never used financial records in his own investigations and
• 1:14
  Speaker 1: did not even know what a SAR or CTR was
• 1:17
  Speaker 1: before J.P. Morgan retained him for the case. Second, he
• 1:20
  Speaker 1: provides opinions on Redacted when he admits that he has
• 1:24
  Speaker 1: no idea whether or how other FBI agents besides himself
• 1:28
  Speaker 1: use this type of information. Due to these limitations in
• 1:32
  Speaker 1: his knowledge and experience, Mr. Fonseca is not qualified and
• 1:36
  Speaker 1: lacks sufficient factual basis to opine on the utility of
• 1:39
  Speaker 1: financial information on what anyone besides himself would have done
• 1:44
  Speaker 1: with this information in investigating Epstein. Mr. Fonseca's opinions, therefore,
• 1:49
  Speaker 1: are not admissible expert testimony under FedR Evidence 702. A.
• 1:54
  Speaker 1: Background Facts Mr. Fonseca was an FBI agent from 1998
• 1:58
  Speaker 1: to 2021. He spent most of his career in the
• 2:02
  Speaker 1: FBI's Atlanta field office, where he was an Atlanta FBI
• 2:06
  Speaker 1: Crimes Against Children coordinator. In this position, he investigated crimes
• 2:11
  Speaker 1: involving human trafficking, child sexual exploitation, child pornography, international parental kidnapping,
• 2:17
  Speaker 1: and other crimes involving children and women. He also served
• 2:21
  Speaker 1: as a member of a team of leader for the
• 2:23
  Speaker 1: FBI's Child Abduction Rapid Deployment Team, and later as Supervisory
• 2:28
  Speaker 1: Special Agent and Child Sex Tourism Program Manager in the
• 2:32
  Speaker 1: FBI's Crimes Against Children Major Case Coordination Unit in Washington, D.C.,
• 2:37
  Speaker 1: and as the FBI's first Crimes Against Children Assistant Legal
• 2:41
  Speaker 1: Attaché stationed in Thailand. Mr. Fonseca opines that J.P. Morgan, redacted,
• 2:47
  Speaker 1: he also opines that financial records have limited utility in
• 2:51
  Speaker 1: investigations similar to those conducted into Epstein, and that Epstein's
• 2:56
  Speaker 1: banking transactions would not fit within a typical trafficking investigation. Mr.
• 3:00
  Speaker 1: Fonseca's primary basis for these opinions, in his personal experience
• 3:05
  Speaker 1: as an FBI special agent, he reports that, to begin with,
• 3:09
  Speaker 1: over the course of my career, I have never relied
• 3:11
  Speaker 1: on a SAR while investigating a person on charges of
• 3:14
  Speaker 1: sex trafficking. This approach did not reflect an informed decision. Mr.
• 3:18
  Speaker 1: Fonseca did not know what SARS were and never saw
• 3:22
  Speaker 1: one during his FBI tenure or until after J.P. Morgan
• 3:26
  Speaker 1: retained him for the case. Prior to this litigation, had
• 3:30
  Speaker 1: you ever heard of a suspicious activity report? Answer, I
• 3:33
  Speaker 1: had not. Question, prior to this litigation, had you ever
• 3:36
  Speaker 1: seen a suspicious activity report? Answer, I don't believe I have, no.
• 3:41
  Speaker 1: He also had no prior understanding of what CTRs were. Question, okay,
• 3:45
  Speaker 1: have you ever heard of something called a currency transaction report? Answer,
• 3:49
  Speaker 1: I have now, yes. Question, and have you ever heard
• 3:52
  Speaker 1: of it prior to your work in this case? Answer,
• 3:55
  Speaker 1: not that I recall, no. Mr. Fonseca's current understanding of
• 4:00
  Speaker 1: SARs develops solely for this litigation, remains limited. Question, okay,
• 4:05
  Speaker 1: are you able to tell me what triggers the obligation
• 4:08
  Speaker 1: of a financial institution like J.P. Morgan to file a SAR? Answer, no,
• 4:13
  Speaker 1: there is some reporting requirement, but I don't know what
• 4:15
  Speaker 1: it is. Question, no. That's outside of your area of expertise.
• 4:19
  Speaker 1: Is that fair? Answer. That's correct. Yes. Question. Okay. Are
• 4:23
  Speaker 1: you able to describe for me any of the information
• 4:25
  Speaker 1: that's required to be disclosed in a suspicious activity report? Answer.
• 4:30
  Speaker 1: I'm not. Question. Okay. That's outside of your area of
• 4:33
  Speaker 1: expertise as well. Answer. Correct. Question. Do you have any
• 4:37
  Speaker 1: idea how a suspicious activity report is different, if at all,
• 4:41
  Speaker 1: from a CTR? Answer. I don't. Question. No. Do you
• 4:45
  Speaker 1: know if a financial institution, like J.P. Morgan, is excused
• 4:48
  Speaker 1: from filing a CTR or a Suspicious Activity Report? Answer,
• 4:53
  Speaker 1: I don't know. Question, do you understand that Suspicious Activity
• 4:57
  Speaker 1: Reports are not just limited to cash activity? Answer, I
• 5:01
  Speaker 1: don't know that as well. So too does Mr. Fonseca's
• 5:04
  Speaker 1: current understanding of CTRs, which likewise was developed solely for
• 5:08
  Speaker 1: this litigation, and it remains limited. Question, okay, and can
• 5:12
  Speaker 1: you tell me, generally, your understanding of what a CTR is? Answer,
• 5:17
  Speaker 1: generally a banking document that provides some form of information
• 5:21
  Speaker 1: on finances, I guess. Question, can you tell me what
• 5:25
  Speaker 1: triggers the obligation for a financial institution like J.P. Morgan
• 5:28
  Speaker 1: to file a CTR? Answer, I have no idea. Question,
• 5:33
  Speaker 1: can you tell me what's required to be disclosed by
• 5:35
  Speaker 1: a financial institution like J.P. Morgan in a currency transaction report? Answer,
• 5:40
  Speaker 1: I do not know. Mr. Fonseca also bases his opinions
• 5:45
  Speaker 1: that redacted and redacted. Here again, though, Mr. Fonseca circles
• 5:50
  Speaker 1: back to his own personal practice to explain the Epstein
• 5:53
  Speaker 1: investigators' decisions. The fact that Epstein was not arrested on
• 5:56
  Speaker 1: the basis of all this information and JPMC never received
• 6:00
  Speaker 1: subpoenas from federal authorities seeking additional information is a strong
• 6:04
  Speaker 1: indication that, consistent with my experience investigating sex trafficking cases, redacted.
• 6:11
  Speaker 1: In providing and explaining his opinion, Mr. Fonseca makes clear
• 6:14
  Speaker 1: both that the basis for his opinion regarding J.P. Morgan
• 6:18
  Speaker 1: and Epstein is his belief that redacted and that the
• 6:21
  Speaker 1: sole basis for this belief is his own personal practice. Question.
• 6:26
  Speaker 1: You told me today that you didn't even know what
• 6:28
  Speaker 1: a suspicious activity report was until you got involved in
• 6:31
  Speaker 1: this case. So how do you know that they would
• 6:34
  Speaker 1: not have been useful in your investigations because you never
• 6:37
  Speaker 1: even looked at them previously? Answer. So my career I
• 6:41
  Speaker 1: would think, was fairly successful. I followed tried and true
• 6:44
  Speaker 1: protocols that we had without victim-centered approach of investigating cases
• 6:49
  Speaker 1: of sex trafficking. And I can say in my opinion,
• 6:52
  Speaker 1: and they're not, it's not important because our cases were
• 6:55
  Speaker 1: successful the way we worked them. They didn't require that
• 6:58
  Speaker 1: type of documentation. So I think my experience speaks to
• 7:01
  Speaker 1: the success I had in my casework. Question, and sitting
• 7:05
  Speaker 1: here today, you don't know whether or not other agents
• 7:08
  Speaker 1: in other field offices had successes in their investigations utilizing
• 7:13
  Speaker 1: suspicious activity reports. Is that fair? Answer, I would have
• 7:17
  Speaker 1: not much idea on that, and I say not much
• 7:20
  Speaker 1: because I didn't interact every day with other offices, so
• 7:23
  Speaker 1: that would be fair. Question, you understand that there are
• 7:26
  Speaker 1: other FBI agents who may have used a different approach
• 7:30
  Speaker 1: in investigating sex trafficking operations. Is that fair? Answer, I
• 7:34
  Speaker 1: have no idea. He also admitted that prosecutors' evidence against
• 7:38
  Speaker 1: Epstein's co-conspirator, Ghislaine Maxwell, did incorporate financial records. Well, I'll
• 7:44
  Speaker 1: give you an example here, is the question. The Ghislaine
• 7:46
  Speaker 1: Maxwell case. They used the financial records to show that
• 7:50
  Speaker 1: she was a co-conspirator, didn't they? Answer, again. They used
• 7:54
  Speaker 1: the records, yes, but not being part of that trial,
• 7:57
  Speaker 1: I don't know what ended up proving, but they did
• 8:00
  Speaker 1: use the records, yes. B. Fonseca is not qualified to
• 8:04
  Speaker 1: provide expert testimony on the use of redacted in federal
• 8:08
  Speaker 1: trafficking investigations. J.P. Morgan proffers Mr. Fonseca is an expert
• 8:14
  Speaker 1: based on his experience in the field of trafficking investigation.
• 8:18
  Speaker 1: Opinion is based on my review of the materials identified
• 8:21
  Speaker 1: in Appendix B to this report and my years of
• 8:24
  Speaker 1: experience investigating crimes against children and sex trafficking cases as
• 8:28
  Speaker 1: a special agent for the FBI. Whether or not this
• 8:31
  Speaker 1: experience is might qualify him to provide other expert opinions
• 8:35
  Speaker 1: within the subject of trafficking investigations, it does not qualify
• 8:39
  Speaker 1: him to provide opinions on the utility of redacted and
• 8:42
  Speaker 1: financial records. Mr. Fonseca's experience gave him no understanding or
• 8:47
  Speaker 1: awareness of SARs, CTRs, or bank reporting duties. It was
• 8:51
  Speaker 1: not that he declined to use this type of evidence
• 8:54
  Speaker 1: in trafficking investigations as a deliberate and well-founded choice. He
• 8:58
  Speaker 1: didn't know what it was. Even today, after J.P. Morgan
• 9:01
  Speaker 1: prepared him to testify as an expert on this subject,
• 9:04
  Speaker 1: he still has at best a limited understanding of what
• 9:07
  Speaker 1: SARS are and what information they contain. He therefore is
• 9:12
  Speaker 1: not qualified to provide expert testimony on the utility of
• 9:15
  Speaker 1: redacted and federal trafficking investigations. Mr. Fonseca's experience with other
• 9:20
  Speaker 1: facets of trafficking investigations, describing approach to interviewing victims, does
• 9:25
  Speaker 1: not qualify him as an expert on the uses of
• 9:28
  Speaker 1: redacted in trafficking investigations, on which he has no experience
• 9:33
  Speaker 1: and no pre-retention knowledge. See generally United States v. Dukagidji, 326F, 3D, 4554,
• 9:42
  Speaker 1: 2nd Circuit, 2003. When an expert is no longer applying
• 9:46
  Speaker 1: his extensive experience and a reliable methodology, Daubert teaches that
• 9:50
  Speaker 1: the testimony should be excluded. Courts in this circuit have
• 9:53
  Speaker 1: stricken extraneous testimony where an expert is admitted under Rule
• 9:58
  Speaker 1: 702 and then purports to object. opinions beyond the scope
• 10:01
  Speaker 1: of his expertise. In Dukagini, the Second Circuit ruled that
• 10:05
  Speaker 1: the Drug Enforcement Administration agent called to testify as an
• 10:08
  Speaker 1: expert on the meaning of code words used in narcotics
• 10:11
  Speaker 1: trafficking could not permissibly testify as to the meaning of
• 10:15
  Speaker 1: other ambiguous non-code words used in the same conversations. Biggs'
• 10:20
  Speaker 1: testimony offers two examples of how experts on drug code
• 10:24
  Speaker 1: can stray from the scope of his expertise. First, he
• 10:27
  Speaker 1: testified about the meaning of conversations in general beyond the
• 10:30
  Speaker 1: interpretation of code words. Second, Biggs interpreted ambiguous slang terms
• 10:35
  Speaker 1: that only, at first glance, might appear to be code
• 10:38
  Speaker 1: or jargon. So here, Mr. Fonseca's experience with other trafficking
• 10:42
  Speaker 1: investigation techniques does not qualify him to testify on the
• 10:47
  Speaker 1: use of redacted or CTRs given his lack of experience
• 10:51
  Speaker 1: or knowledge of either. Mr. Fonseca's lack of experience with
• 10:55
  Speaker 1: the use of redacted and trafficking investigations shows in his
• 10:59
  Speaker 1: opinions themselves. After describing redacted, Mr. Fonseca does not and
• 11:04
  Speaker 1: could not assess whether this may have provided leads to
• 11:07
  Speaker 1: additional evidence because he has no experience on which to
• 11:11
  Speaker 1: do so. Instead, he retreats to the blanket conclusion that
• 11:15
  Speaker 1: the investigators considered all redacted to be irrelevant. The fact
• 11:19
  Speaker 1: that Epstein was not arrested on the basis of all
• 11:21
  Speaker 1: this information and JPMC never received a subpoena from federal
• 11:25
  Speaker 1: authorities seeking additional information is a strong indication that consistent
• 11:30
  Speaker 1: with my experience investigating sex trafficking cases redacted. Mr. Fonseca's
• 11:36
  Speaker 1: experience afforded him no basis to form this conclusion. As
• 11:40
  Speaker 1: an investigator, he did not redacted since he did not
• 11:43
  Speaker 1: know what they were. He also did not know whether
• 11:47
  Speaker 1: or how any other investigators use redacted in their investigations
• 11:51
  Speaker 1: of trafficking. Mr. Fonseca's lack of any experience basis on
• 11:55
  Speaker 1: which to assess the information that was available to investigators
• 11:59
  Speaker 1: renders him unqualified to provide his opinion. All right, we're
• 12:03
  Speaker 1: going to wrap up right here. And in the next episode,
• 12:05
  Speaker 1: we're going to pick up where we left off. And
• 12:07
  Speaker 1: that's with C. Mr. Fonseca's opinions about what federal law
• 12:10
  Speaker 1: enforcement would have done are not based on sufficient facts.
• 12:14
  Speaker 1: All of the information that goes with this episode can
• 12:17
  Speaker 1: be found in the description box.