Lesley Groff has never been charged with any offence. Federal prosecutors reviewed her communications for more than two years and told her in 2021 that no charges would be brought. She spoke with them voluntarily and answered every question. She testified to Congress voluntarily in June 2026. Her position is that she never knowingly booked travel for anyone under eighteen and had no knowledge of any illegal activity. This page documents the operational record and the question the 2007 agreement closed without answering.
This is the hardest page in the archive to write fairly, and it is worth saying why.
An executive assistant books travel, keeps a calendar and passes messages. Those are the ordinary duties of the job, and doing them for a man who turns out to be a criminal is not itself a crime. Prosecutors who spent two years reading her emails concluded exactly that.
But the same duties, performed for this employer, meant scheduling appointments that survivors describe as abuse, arranging travel for young women, and maintaining the logistics that made a twenty-year operation possible. The acts are identical. Only the context differs, and the context is the whole question.
The 2007 agreement did not resolve it. It removed the possibility of resolving it. Four assistants were immunised without any finding about what any of them knew — and on her attorney’s account, without her even being told she had been named.
What the files show is a person at the centre of everything and visibly at a distance from its meaning. In January 2019 she sent an AI executive the phone number of an Eastern European woman Epstein had been paying — nearly $20,000 over three years, and $20,000 more before his death. Groff wrote that Epstein had asked her to send it and that “the purpose of the introduction was not clear.” That sentence can be read as an assistant relaying an instruction she did not understand, or as one recording her own unease. It is genuinely ambiguous, and this page does not pretend otherwise.
Against that sits what survivors have said. One victim, a minor at the time, told the FBI she felt Groff “knew that the massage appointments were sexual” and that it was “pretty obvious Lesley knew what was going on.” Jennifer Araoz said Groff scheduled her “massages” at the New York house. Neither account has been tested. Araoz’s suit was dismissed as a condition of accepting a compensation payout, not on its merits — a distinction that matters when the dismissals are cited as vindication.
Both things are true at once, and the honest page holds them together rather than choosing.
“She never knowingly booked travel for anyone under the age of 18, and had no knowledge of the alleged illegal activity whatsoever.”
“The fact that the U.S. Attorney’s Office did not prosecute Lesley, after she voluntarily spoke with them, answering every question posed of her, demonstrates clearly that she had no criminal involvement.”
“Lesley is simply disgusted by Epstein’s conduct and is heartbroken by what his victims endured.”
— Michael Bachner, counsel to Lesley Groff
Section 01
The Record
Executive assistant to Epstein for close to two decades. Her attorney describes the role: “making endless appointments for Epstein as directed by him, taking his messages, and setting up high-level meetings with CEOs, business executives, scientists, politicians and celebrities.”
She is one of four assistants granted immunity by the non-prosecution agreement — alongside Sarah Kellen, Nadia Marcinkova and Adriana Ross. Her attorney says she was never notified of her co-conspirator status, and that prosecutors never told his office she was considered one.
A former colleague, Lacerda, to ABC News: “Anything that had to do with Jeffrey Epstein had to go through Lesley Groff.” She appears across this archive as the operational hub — writing to Zuckerberg’s chief of staff, chasing a calendar entry about Musk, coordinating a visit to the island, arranging a Ukrainian woman’s education and expenses from 2015 to 2019.
Per an Oversight Committee document published May 2026: Groff sent Neil Serebryany, an AI executive in Washington, the phone number of an Eastern European woman Epstein had been paying. By that point Epstein had sent her almost $20,000 over three years; before his death he sent another $20,000. Groff wrote that Epstein had asked her to send it, and that “the purpose of the introduction was not clear.”
After Epstein’s arrest, federal prosecutors in New York include her on a list of potential co-conspirators and serve a subpoena. She speaks with prosecutors voluntarily, and her attorney says she answered every question put to her.
“After a more than two-year review of relevant communications, we have been informed that no criminal charges will be brought against Lesley Groff.” — statement from her attorneys. She has never been charged with anything.
Her attorney notes that every civil lawsuit against her was dismissed. The qualification matters: Jennifer Araoz, who alleged Groff scheduled “massages” for her at the New York house, maintained her account and dropped the suit only as a condition of accepting a payout from the Epstein Victims’ Compensation Program. That is a procedural dismissal, not a finding.
One victim — a minor at the time of her alleged abuse — told the FBI she felt Groff “knew that the massage appointments were sexual” and that it was “pretty obvious Lesley knew what was going on.” An account given to investigators, never tested in court.
A closed-door transcribed interview with the House Oversight Committee — the day before Bill Gates. In prepared remarks she says she hopes to “dispel the false notions” that she “knowingly enabled or conspired with him to commit his evil acts.” “Nothing could be further from the truth.”
Chairman James Comer says the committee has referred two names to the Department of Justice. He did not identify them, and nothing indicates Groff is among them.
Section 02
Four Categories
The declination comes first because it is the most significant fact about her legal position. The fourth category is the one nobody has ever addressed.
Federal prosecutors reviewed her communications for more than two years and declined to bring charges in 2021. She spoke with them voluntarily and answered everything asked. She has never been charged in any jurisdiction, and she testified to Congress voluntarily.
Twenty years as executive assistant. Immunity under the 2007 agreement. Operational correspondence across the whole archive — travel, calendars, introductions, expenses. The January 2019 message passing a paid woman’s phone number to a third party.
A survivor’s statement to the FBI that Groff “knew what was going on.” Jennifer Araoz’s account that Groff scheduled her “massages.” Neither was tested. The Araoz suit ended by settlement condition, not on the merits.
Where the line falls between a long-serving employee following instructions and a participant. The 2007 agreement immunised her without ever answering it — and, on her account, without telling her. No proceeding has ever addressed it.
Section 03
The Last Witness
Set aside the question of her culpability entirely, and something else about this page matters more.
Groff is the exception. She is alive, she has spoken to prosecutors, and in June 2026 she gave a transcribed interview to Congress. On any account of her own conduct, she is the single richest surviving source on how the enterprise actually functioned — who was scheduled, who was introduced, who paid, and who was told what.
Which raises a question this archive keeps arriving at from different directions. The interview was closed-door. The transcript has not been published. The two names the committee referred to the Justice Department have not been disclosed.
The most valuable testimony available about the mechanics of a twenty-year child sex trafficking operation was taken in private, and the public has been told its conclusions in summary. That may be entirely proper — witnesses are routinely interviewed privately, and survivor privacy is a real constraint. But it is the same posture that produced every failure documented on this site: the record exists, and somebody else decides who sees it.
Section 04
Open Questions
Section 05
Sources
The Oversight Testimony
June 2026. Her prepared remarks, the 2021 declination, and the survivor’s statement to the FBI.
abcnews.com →What the Documents Say
June 2026. The 130,000 mentions, and the January 2019 Serebryany exchange from the Oversight document.
newsnationnow.com →The Closed-Door Interview
June 2026. The session, the Gates appearance the following day, and the two DOJ referrals.
cnbc.com →The Civil Suits
The dismissals — and Jennifer Araoz’s position that she dropped hers as a condition of compensation.
Read the report →Indyke & Kahn
The lawyer and the accountant — named in a will signed two days before his death.
Read the profile →Ramsey Elkholy
~3,000 documents, in his own voice — and the AI-dossier hazard around private names.
Read the profile →The Four Named
The immunity clause that closed the question without answering it.
Read the report →Daniel Siad
Three operators, no trials — and why she is the last witness.
Read the profile →Ukraine
The education, travel and expenses arranged through Epstein’s office, 2015–19.
Read the file →Who Paid
Why a private transcript is the same posture as every other failure here.
Read the report →