Another major barrier is time. Epstein’s abuse spanned decades, and many alleged incidents date back to the 1990s and early 2000s. Statutes of limitation—which set deadlines for when charges can be brought—have already expired in many jurisdictions. Even where laws have changed to extend or eliminate those limits, prosecutors still face enormous challenges reconstructing cases so far in the past.

There is also the issue of Epstein himself. His death in 2019 effectively halted the central criminal case. With the primary defendant gone, prosecutors lost the leverage that often helps build cases against associates. In many sex trafficking investigations, convictions hinge on cooperation agreements, corroborated testimony, and documented financial trails that can be linked directly to a living defendant.

Without Epstein, investigators were left with fragments—some credible, some vague, some impossible to verify. As legal analysts have noted in coverage of the unsealed records, including reporting that explains how civil discovery differs from criminal evidence, these documents were never intended to function as charging instruments (analysis of the unsealed Epstein files).

Another uncomfortable reality is that being “named” is not the same as being accused of a crime. Several individuals referenced in the files are mentioned in passing, appear in contact lists, or are described as having attended events. None of that establishes criminal conduct on its own. Prosecutors must show intent, participation, and knowledge—elements that are extremely difficult to prove without direct evidence.

The public release of these materials has also fueled confusion about what law enforcement has already investigated. Multiple federal inquiries have examined Epstein’s network over the years, and while some related figures have faced scrutiny, others were investigated and not charged due to insufficient evidence. That outcome, while unsatisfying to many, is still legally meaningful.

It’s also worth noting that civil litigation allows accusers to speak in ways that criminal court often does not. Victims may name people they believe harmed them or facilitated abuse, even if prosecutors later determine that those claims cannot be proven to the criminal standard. The unsealing of these records exposed those raw allegations to public view, without the context of a trial verdict.