Skip to main content
Search
< All Topics
Print

Janusz Banasiak: Epstein’s Palm Beach House Manager and a Witness to the Household Records

Posted
Updated
ByEpsteinWiki

Snapshot

Janusz Banasiak managed Jeffrey Epstein’s Palm Beach residence from approximately February 2005 until the summer of 2017. He lived in staff quarters on the property, prepared the house for arrivals, received visitors, drove Epstein and his guests, maintained household funds, and recorded telephone messages. Ghislaine Maxwell interviewed him for the job and, according to Banasiak, initially directed much of his work.

Banasiak’s importance to the investigation rests on what he observed and recorded. In a January 2007 FBI interview, EFTA01227780, pages 3 and 4, he described admitting girls who came to see Epstein and recalled paying one from household cash. In a February 2010 sworn deposition, EFTA00158250, he described the repeated visits and the removal of three computers before police searched the residence. In 2021, prosecutors preparing the Ghislaine Maxwell case questioned him again about the household manual and telephone message books.

The federal prosecutor’s office expressly described Banasiak as a witness, not a target, in January 2007 correspondence, EFTA00158226. The records examined here do not establish that he was charged with an Epstein related crime. His accounts contain differences across the years, especially about who physically removed the computers. Those differences matter and are set out below.

Key Takeaways

  • Banasiak began managing the Palm Beach house in February 2005, shortly before the police investigation began.
  • His duties gave him direct knowledge of household schedules, visitors, transportation, payments, telephone messages, and the location of records.
  • He told federal agents that approximately ten to fifteen different local girls came to the house for what he understood to be massages. He recalled paying one of them from household petty cash.
  • In 2021, he told prosecutors that some visitors appeared to be of high school age and that he sometimes heard them discuss school. That was his impression, not an age determination for every visitor.
  • A bank statement lists Epstein, Maxwell, and Banasiak on a household checking account. Its existence supports his description of a shared account used for household spending. It does not, by itself, establish improper transactions.
  • Epstein’s lawyer told a Florida state prosecutor in 2006 that Epstein would pay Banasiak’s lawyer. A later Epstein legal expense schedule lists $15,000 billed and paid to that lawyer. The federal prosecutor subsequently questioned whether the payment arrangement created a conflict.
  • Banasiak described three computers leaving the house before the October 2005 police search. His accounts differ about the identity of the person who came to collect them. The records do not show Banasiak removing the computers himself.
  • Federal prosecutors offered him an agreement limiting direct use of statements from his interview. It was not a formal grant of immunity.
  • Prosecutors prepared Banasiak for possible testimony in the 2021 Maxwell trial. The preparation records do not, on their own, establish that he testified before the jury.

Before Epstein and the Hiring Process

Banasiak is a Polish national who moved to the United States in 1980, according to reporting based on his 2010 deposition. Before working for Epstein, he said he had worked for a Manhattan family and managed a conference center for Seagram’s.

A Maryland domestic employment agency brought the Palm Beach opening to his attention. In the opening pages of his February 16, 2010 deposition, EFTA00158250, pages 5 through 9, Banasiak said Maxwell interviewed him first in New York. He then met Epstein at Epstein’s Madison Avenue office. He began work at the Palm Beach property in February 2005.

Banasiak lived in a small staff house on the property. He told investigators that his work included preparing the main residence, buying groceries and flowers, overseeing cleaning and maintenance, handling arrivals, and driving Epstein and others. The February 2007 FBI interview, EFTA00158236 identifies him as the Palm Beach property manager. His 2010 deposition, EFTA00158250 provides his account under oath.

The Household Manual and Maxwell’s Direction

The Palm Beach household manual, EFTA00066372, is dated February 14, 2005. It covers grooming, guest relations, telephone etiquette, arrivals, room preparation, cleaning, and maintenance. Its instruction to staff to see and hear nothing except when answering a direct question illustrates the privacy rules under which employees worked. EpsteinWiki separately examines the 2005 household manual.

Banasiak said Maxwell instructed him on Epstein’s preferences and how to answer calls. In his October 2021 FBI interview, EFTA00144187, he described taking messages without telling callers whether Epstein was home. He said Maxwell pointed out the message book kept by the telephone.

His November 2021 trial preparation notes, EFTA00158461 record that he recognized the household manual presented as Government Exhibit 606. He also identified message books and entries containing his handwriting. This is a practical evidentiary role: he could explain how records were made in the house and identify work he had personally done.

Banasiak told prosecutors that he reported to Maxwell for approximately his first year. In his deposition, he described Maxwell as someone who organized the household and whom he contacted for instructions when she was away. These are his observations about management of the property, not a legal finding about Maxwell’s responsibility for every event there.

Young Visitors, Massages, and Cash Payments

In the January 11, 2007 FBI interview, EFTA01227780, pages 3 and 4, Banasiak described being notified of arrivals, greeting visitors, and informing an Epstein assistant that someone had come. He recalled approximately ten to fifteen different local girls who visited, some more often than others. He believed some were there to give Epstein massages and recalled paying one girl from his petty cash fund.

The February 2, 2007 FBI interview, EFTA00158236 records his account that Epstein could receive one, two, or sometimes three massages in a day. Banasiak described folding the massage table and collecting towels afterward. He also told investigators that he had not seen used condoms or sex toys during that cleaning and had not observed a visitor appearing upset. Those statements describe the limits of what he said he personally saw. They do not resolve what occurred upstairs.

In his sworn 2010 deposition, EFTA00158250, particularly pages 25 through 45, Banasiak again described young female visitors, the route from the entrance toward the upstairs massage area, and his estimate of ten to fifteen different visitors. He said that, from his perspective, these visits stopped after the October 2005 police search. He also described occasionally paying visitors and, in reporting based on the deposition, recalled being asked to arrange a rental car for a young woman.

The later account is more explicit about apparent age. In a November 19, 2021 prosecutor’s note, EFTA00158465, Banasiak said some girls appeared to be of high school age, that he had heard talk of school, and that he saw such visitors within days of starting work. He did not say he knew every visitor’s precise age or school grade.

In his October 2021 interview, EFTA00144187, Banasiak said he had not personally witnessed the acts Epstein was accused of or seen anyone forced. He said he would have spoken up if he had known what was occurring. His denial of direct observation belongs beside his descriptions of the visitors and payments. Neither should be omitted.

EpsteinWiki’s article on the 2021 FBI interview provides a separate guide to that document.

The Household Money Trail

Banasiak told the FBI in 2007 that he maintained approximately $1,500 in petty cash for household expenses. A Colonial Bank statement, EFTA00185541, for April through May 2005 lists Epstein, Maxwell, and Banasiak in the account title. It records incoming funds from Epstein and checks in $1,500 amounts. This independently supports the existence of the account and Banasiak’s access to household funds.

In 2021, he described withdrawing approximately $2,000 at a time for groceries, gasoline, and other expenses, then preparing expense reports. The figures may concern different periods or practices. The available statements do not establish that every withdrawal throughout his employment followed the same amount. The expense reports he described have not been identified in the reviewed materials.

He told prosecutors that his starting annual pay was $65,000, followed by raises. He also said staff pay was reduced by ten percent after Epstein’s arrest and that the reduction was not later restored. These are Banasiak’s accounts of his compensation, recorded in EFTA00144187.

The October 2005 Search and the Missing Computers

Banasiak was at the Palm Beach property when police executed a search warrant in October 2005. He told investigators that officers approached while he was in the staff house and that he later delivered the warrant papers to an Epstein lawyer. His recollection of the exact date was less reliable in a 2021 preparation note, where he said he was unsure and thought the search may have occurred in 2006. The contemporaneous investigation establishes October 2005.

Three computers had left the residence before the search. In his February 2010 deposition, EFTA00158250, pages 56 through 65, Banasiak described receiving advance notice that an assistant and a man he did not know would come to collect them. He said he did not know the man’s identity and placed the event roughly one or two months before the search, without claiming an exact date.

An FBI agent’s July 2007 declaration, EFTA00158240, pages 8 through 10 recounts an earlier interview in which Banasiak said he had not removed the computers. The declaration attributes their collection to a person whose name is redacted in that copy and a private investigator identified as Paul Lavery. It describes Lavery’s account of receiving equipment already boxed and later delivering it to William Riley of another investigative firm. Investigators sought the computers through grand jury subpoenas.

A November 2021 preparation note, EFTA00158461 records a different recollection: Banasiak said a man he remembered as Riley came to the house, that he let the man in, and that he saw him leave after the computers were removed. These accounts agree that computers left before the search and that Banasiak was aware of their collection. They differ on who arrived and the route the equipment took.

The declaration says investigators believed items had been removed in anticipation of the search. That was an investigative assessment, not a finding that Banasiak knew a search was coming or personally concealed evidence. A separate January 2006 letter from his lawyer, EFTA00158220, asks about collecting Banasiak’s own computer and related equipment. The record does not establish that his computer was one of the three sought by the grand jury, so the two issues should not be merged.

Epstein’s Payment for Banasiak’s Lawyer

As state prosecutors sought to speak with Banasiak in January 2006, he retained attorney Michael Salnick. In a January 11 letter contained in EFTA00158220, Epstein lawyer Guy Fronstin informed the state prosecutor that Epstein would pay Salnick because the questions arose from Banasiak’s employment. Fronstin asked whether the prosecutor objected to that third party fee arrangement.

An Epstein legal expense schedule, EFTA00727857, page 5, later lists Salnick with $15,000 billed and $15,000 paid, with nothing outstanding as of July 21, 2010. The schedule identifies Salnick, although it does not itself name Banasiak beside the payment. Together with the 2006 letter, it is stronger evidence of the fee arrangement than the letter alone. It does not reveal all the terms governing Salnick’s representation.

The federal prosecutor’s office later raised the potential conflict directly. In January 24, 2007 correspondence, EFTA00158226, it asked Salnick who paid him, whether anyone other than Banasiak directed his work, and whether any joint defense agreement existed. The reviewed record does not establish how Salnick answered every question.

Payment of a witness’s lawyer by the person under investigation creates an issue prosecutors must examine because the witness and payer may have different interests. The letters establish that prosecutors identified and pursued that issue. They do not prove that Banasiak changed his account for Epstein.

Witness Status and the Agreement With Prosecutors

Banasiak’s lawyer sought stronger protection before a federal interview. In January 2007 letters collected in EFTA00158226, Salnick requested formal immunity. The prosecutor’s office replied that Banasiak was a subpoenaed witness and not a target of the grand jury investigation. It declined to treat the requested formal immunity as necessary on the basis presented.

Instead, the office proposed terms limiting the direct use of statements made during the debriefing, subject to the agreement’s conditions. A January copy contains blank signature lines. A February 2 counterpart, EFTA01338095, pages 1 and 3, carries Banasiak’s and Salnick’s signatures and the interview date.

The distinction is important. Banasiak had counsel and signed an interview agreement. The document does not show a formal blanket grant of immunity from prosecution. Accounts that call him an “immunized witness” without explaining the narrower agreement overstate what these letters establish.

The January 2007 FBI interview, EFTA01227780, also records Banasiak placing expense records in a sealed envelope after consulting Salnick and taking them to his lawyer’s office for preservation. That interview occurred before the signed February agreement and should not be conflated with it.

The 2010 Sworn Deposition

On February 16, 2010, Banasiak gave sworn testimony in a Florida civil case against Epstein. The 200 page deposition, EFTA00158250, is a major source because it allows readers to see the questions, answers, objections, and limits of his recollection in context.

The deposition covers:

  • His hiring through a domestic employment agency and interviews with Maxwell and Epstein.
  • His duties, residence in the staff house, and instructions from other household personnel.
  • The arrival of young female visitors and what he understood about massages.
  • Household cash and occasional payments to visitors.
  • His description of the three computers removed before the search.
  • Epstein’s subsequent incarceration and work release, including Banasiak’s account of driving him between the jail and his West Palm Beach work location.
  • Other visitors to the property, including modeling agent Jean Luc Brunel, whom Banasiak said he sometimes drove to or from the airport.

The Daily Beast’s review of the deposition reported Banasiak’s statement that he did not consider it his job to question why visitors came. That statement helps explain his account of his own conduct. It does not settle what he knew at every stage of his employment.

Work Across Epstein’s Properties

Although Palm Beach was his principal assignment, Banasiak sometimes covered work in New York. The November 2021 notes, EFTA00158461, record his description of filling in while other household staff were away. He said he drove Epstein and Maxwell, served food, bought groceries, and performed maintenance tasks there.

Routine correspondence documents his place in the property network. EFTA00327491 copies him on an aircraft arrival notice. EFTA02091013 identifies him as the person a supplier needed to contact for a delivery. EFTA02555081 places him on a household scheduling message with Lesley Groff and other staff. These documents show operational responsibility. They do not establish that he controlled Epstein’s flights or the conduct of everyone who visited.

In 2016, Epstein proposed Banasiak and his wife for a possible household position at Glenn and Eva Dubin’s North Salem property. The July email in EFTA00630164 records the suggestion. Later correspondence in EFTA01058334 describes interest in exploring a couples position. The documents establish a possible placement, not that the Dubins ultimately hired them. Epstein Data discusses these records in its North Salem investigation.

Banasiak said his employment with Epstein ended in the summer of 2017 and that another person took the Palm Beach position. His accounts differ slightly over whether Epstein found him another job or whether he found one himself. Neither account establishes that the proposed North Salem placement occurred.

Family Employment and the Limits of That Connection

The Daily Beast reported in 2019 that Banasiak’s wife Ofelia had worked for Ivana Trump and that another family member briefly worked for her. The newspaper said it could not establish whether Epstein played any role in that employment.

This is a connection between household workers and employers in overlapping social circles. It is not evidence that Banasiak supplied information to the Trump family or that those jobs formed part of Epstein’s conduct. The family members’ private travel and addresses are unnecessary to understand Banasiak’s documented role and are not reproduced here.

The Trust Provisions

A 2015 amendment to an Epstein trust, EFTA00082267, names Banasiak for a contingent $58,500 bequest if he survived Epstein. A separate 2017 trust instrument, EFTA00099424, page 5, lists a contingent $25,000 provision for him.

The two amounts are written in different instruments. They are proposed future benefits, not evidence that Banasiak received either amount. The reviewed documents do not establish why the figures differed or that either listed benefit was ultimately paid. No conclusion about a payment after Epstein’s death follows from these provisions alone.

The 2021 Maxwell Investigation

Federal investigators returned to Banasiak’s account while preparing the criminal case against Maxwell. EFTA00158450 records a September 2021 interview. EFTA00144187 records an October interview. Prosecutors also kept November 13 preparation notes, EFTA00158461, November 14 notes, EFTA00158464, and November 19 notes, EFTA00158465.

These records revisit his employment, Maxwell’s household role, visitors, messages, manuals, the search, and the removed computers. They also record corrections and changed recollections. For example, Banasiak initially described a contact book as black, then corrected its appearance to a book with silver or metal covers. That correction is recorded in the October interview and should be retained whenever the book is described.

The preparation notes say he identified the Palm Beach manual as Government Exhibit 606 and recognized his handwriting in certain telephone message books associated with Government Exhibits 1 and 4. His recognition of those items explains why prosecutors were interested in him as a witness. Preparation for testimony does not prove that he ultimately appeared before the jury.

What the Records Establish and What They Do Not

Banasiak was a long serving household employee with first hand knowledge of how the Palm Beach house operated. His interviews and deposition document girls arriving for appointments, some cash payments, messages and schedules, and the removal of computers before police searched the property. Bank records, manuals, emails, legal correspondence, and trust instruments independently document parts of his employment and access.

His descriptions of age were impressions, not verified birth records for every visitor. His denial that he personally witnessed forced sexual activity is part of the record. His accounts about the computers must be compared by date because the 2007 declaration, 2010 deposition, and 2021 notes do not identify the collector in the same way.

The federal prosecutor called him a witness rather than a target. The reviewed material does not show an Epstein related criminal charge against him. Employment, a household bank account, a lawyer paid through Epstein’s legal expenses, and a proposed trust bequest each raise distinct questions. None alone proves criminal participation.

Chronology

  • 1980: Banasiak moved from Poland to the United States, according to his later account reported by The Daily Beast.
  • December 2004: Maxwell and Epstein interviewed him for the Palm Beach job.
  • February 2005: He began managing Epstein’s Palm Beach residence.
  • October 2005: Police searched the residence. Three computers had previously been removed.
  • January 2006: Epstein’s lawyer disclosed a plan for Epstein to pay Banasiak’s lawyer.
  • January and February 2007: The FBI interviewed Banasiak, and his lawyer negotiated interview terms with federal prosecutors.
  • July 2007: An FBI declaration recounted his information about the missing computers during a grand jury subpoena dispute.
  • February 2010: Banasiak gave a 200 page sworn deposition in Florida civil litigation.
  • May 2013: A process server left papers for Epstein with Banasiak at the Palm Beach house, as recorded in EFTA01092956, page 9.
  • 2015 and 2017: Two Epstein trust instruments listed different contingent amounts for Banasiak.
  • 2016: Epstein proposed him and his wife for possible work at the Dubins’ North Salem property.
  • Summer 2017: Banasiak’s employment with Epstein ended, according to his later statements.
  • September through November 2021: Investigators interviewed him and prepared him for possible testimony in the Maxwell case.

Evidence Appearances

Questions Raised by the Records

  • Who directed the removal of the three computers, who held them afterward, and were the subpoenaed machines eventually obtained and examined? Banasiak’s accounts establish his awareness of their collection but do not resolve the full chain of custody.
  • Where are the expense reports Banasiak said he prepared and preserved? They could help reconstruct the timing and purpose of household payments.
  • How did Salnick respond to the federal prosecutor’s questions about the source of his fees and any joint defense arrangement? The demand is documented; a complete answer has not been established here.
  • What explains the differences between Banasiak’s 2007, 2010, and 2021 recollections? Each account should be read alongside its date and the questions asked.
  • Did the proposed North Salem household position result in employment? The emails show consideration, not a verified hiring.
  • Were either of the contingent trust amounts ever paid? The instruments alone do not answer that question.
  • Was Banasiak called to testify in the Maxwell trial? The preparation documents establish anticipated testimony, while the cited records do not establish an appearance before the jury.

Source List

Tags:
Previous Ingrid Seynhaeve
Next Jeffrey A. Schantz
Table of Contents