Skip to main content
Search
< All Topics
Print

Glenn Dubin and Jeffrey Epstein: The Arrangement Records

Updated
ByEpsteinWiki

Snapshot

  • Virginia Giuffre’s March 2011 FBI interview contains a specific allegation that Epstein introduced her to Glenn Dubin, that a massage at a condominium next to the Breakers became a sexual encounter, and that Dubin and Epstein paid her separately. She said she was 16. Dubin’s representatives have denied the allegations. The interview records an allegation, not an FBI conclusion or a judicial finding.
  • Johanna Sjoberg’s sworn testimony describes a different experience. She remembered massaging Glenn and Eva Dubin at a Breakers Row apartment and expressly said nothing sexual happened. Her account cannot be merged with Giuffre’s, either as corroboration of sexual conduct or as proof that a separate alleged encounter was impossible.
  • Rinaldo Rizzo’s final deposition excerpt records his observation of a distressed girl at the Dubins’ home and what she told him about an island, demands for sex, a withheld passport and threats. He placed the last such incident in late 2004 or 2005. He did not witness the alleged island events. Three days after his deposition, Epstein discussed it directly with Glenn Dubin.
  • The June 13, 2016 email chain shows Epstein telling Dubin that “renaldo” had testified about young girls being brought to North Salem, calling the account nonsense. Dubin replied “uuugghh.” This establishes receipt and a reaction to Epstein’s characterization. It does not establish that Dubin adopted every part of that characterization or admitted the conduct Rizzo described.
  • The surviving arrangements include apartment access, referrals, staffing coordination, dinners, island transport and discussions afterward. Some were written by Eva Dubin or assistants rather than Glenn. Authorship matters. An email concerning one family member is not automatically an instruction or admission by another.
  • This review is current through September 30, 2026. It covers publicly located records, not every occurrence of Dubin’s name in the entire corpus. No public criminal charge or adjudicated finding against Glenn Dubin concerning these sexual allegations was located in the sources reviewed. Redactions are respected, unidentified women and girls remain unidentified, and repeated copies are not counted as additional events.

Evidence comparison chart

Record groupWhat the record supportsWhat it does not establish
Giuffre’s 2011 FBI accountA reported introduction, alleged sexual encounter and alleged cash paymentsIndependent proof of the encounter or a recovered payment record
Giuffre’s 2016 depositionSworn testimony that Maxwell directed her to give Glenn a massage she understood to mean sexA trial finding against Dubin
Maxwell’s depositionHer denial that she sent Giuffre to Glenn’s condominium or instructed sexA judicial resolution of the conflict between the witnesses
Sjoberg’s depositionMassage services at the Dubins’ apartment, explicitly described as nonsexualConfirmation or disproof of Giuffre’s separate allegation
Rizzo’s testimonyHis observations, the girl’s disclosure and his account of subsequent household and travel eventsFirsthand observation of island abuse or proof that Glenn requested sex from her
The 2014 employment referralEva forwarded a model’s résumé; Epstein asked his assistant to arrange a visitA completed hire, the applicant’s age or sexual conduct
The March 2015 apartment chainCoordinated accommodation, a room change, cleaning and luggage arrangementsThat the guest was a minor, a trafficking victim or the girl Rizzo described
The June 2016 reactionDirect discussion between Epstein and Glenn of Rizzo’s depositionA confession or proof of an agreement to suppress evidence
Investment settlement recordsA financial arrangement with stated investment obligationsA payment for a sexual encounter

Reading the records without collapsing their differences

A message arranging a visit, a witness recalling an encounter and an investigator summarizing an allegation answer different questions. The strongest account identifies who spoke, when, what the speaker could personally know and whether the record documents a proposal, an agreement, a completed event or a later description.

FBI interview forms expressly state that they contain neither recommendations nor conclusions of the FBI. A named allegation in such a form is important evidence of what investigators were told. It does not mean investigators independently established every statement in the interview. Deposition testimony is sworn, but a question from counsel is not itself evidence that its premise is true.

The existing Glenn Dubin profile provides background on the broader relationship. This article follows the underlying records concerning arrangements and subsequent discussions. The Jes Staley arrangement records supply a related business and travel thread. Shared travel is relevant context; each alleged act still requires its own evidence.

“Girl,” “massage,” “assistant” and “friend” do not have one fixed meaning across the archive. A correspondent’s age cannot be inferred from the word “girl.” A therapeutic massage cannot be transformed into a sexual service because other witnesses described abuse during massages. A family relationship or professional referral does not establish knowledge of trafficking.

Giuffre’s account of the introduction and the Breakers encounter

EFTA00269896, a 12 page FBI summary of a March 17, 2011 interview in Sydney, was entered on July 5, 2013. Page 4 records Giuffre saying that six to nine months after she began working for Epstein, he told her she would have her first massage client. She identified the couple as Glenn Dubin and Eva, a former model and former girlfriend of Epstein. She said Eva was pregnant.

The same page places the meeting in a condominium next to the Breakers hotel in Palm Beach, reached by elevator. Giuffre described giving Eva an ordinary massage. She said Eva then went to sleep in another room and that she engaged in sexual activity with Glenn. The narrative says Dubin paid several hundred dollars in cash and Epstein paid her the following day. It records her age as 16.

The source attributes the condominium’s purchase to Epstein, but it supplies no deed or closing record. That detail remains part of Giuffre’s account. Likewise, the allegation that Eva was elsewhere in the apartment does not establish that she witnessed, authorized or knew about the alleged sexual encounter.

EFTA01249101, another version of the March 2011 interview, places the introduction on PDF page 4 and the sexual conduct and payment allegations on page 5. These are versions of the same interview, with different formatting and redactions. They should not be counted as two witnesses, two independent confirmations or two additional encounters.

The interview’s wider chronology includes approximate dates for when Giuffre began working at Mar a Lago and met Maxwell. Those estimates should not be used to manufacture a precise calendar date for the Dubin allegation. The reviewed material supports reporting her stated age and the sequence she described, while leaving the exact date unresolved.

What Giuffre said Maxwell instructed her to do

Giuffre’s May 3, 2016 deposition excerpt, PDF page 9, transcript page 200, contains her explanation of the instruction. She testified that when Maxwell directed her to give certain men massages, she understood the instruction to involve sex. Asked specifically whether Maxwell told her to give Glenn a massage, she confirmed that this was her testimony.

Her explanation describes what “massage” meant in the alleged instructions given to her. It should not be applied indiscriminately to every massage mentioned in every email. Sjoberg’s account and later spa correspondence show why the distinction matters.

The September 9, 2019 FBI interview, entered January 15, 2020, returns to the Breakers on page 7. Giuffre said Maxwell instructed her to massage Eva and Glenn, to do for Glenn what she did for Epstein, and to give Eva a legitimate massage. The summary records a specific instruction to avoid Eva’s ankles because she was pregnant. These are recollections of Maxwell’s alleged directions, not independent observations by the interviewing agents.

The same 2019 account describes Epstein and Maxwell presenting encounters with other people as a test she needed to pass to become a real massage therapist. It also records her description of being sent to others repeatedly and using drugs to cope. Those passages matter to the alleged coercive context. They do not identify the details of every occasion or establish that every person she encountered knew the circumstances she described.

The payment accounts contain an unresolved inconsistency

The 2011 summary, page 4, specifically attributes a cash payment of several hundred dollars to Dubin and an additional payment the next day to Epstein. No contemporaneous receipt, check, ledger entry or bank transfer corroborating those particular alleged payments was located for this review.

The 2019 summary, page 7, contains a broader statement that Giuffre was never paid by a third party for a massage and did not recall discussing money with them. That statement appears in the discussion of being sent to other people, after the Breakers account. It does not expressly retract the earlier Dubin allegation, but it is in tension with the 2011 account of cash from Dubin.

Both statements belong in the record. The available material does not establish whether the difference arose from memory, the scope of the questions, the agents’ summaries or another explanation. Describing the cash payment as independently documented would conceal that uncertainty. Describing the later statement as a formal withdrawal of the entire allegation would go beyond the document.

The alleged cash payments are also separate from the Highbridge advisory fee, investment settlements and later household expenses. A verified business transfer cannot supply missing corroboration for a different alleged transaction.

Maxwell denied sending Giuffre to Glenn Dubin

Maxwell’s April 22, 2016 deposition, PDF pages 25 and 26, transcript pages 57 and 58, records her acknowledging that she knew Glenn as Eva’s husband and that Eva was her friend. She denied sending Giuffre to Glenn’s condominium at the Breakers for a massage. Asked whether she instructed Giuffre to have sex with Glenn, she denied ever instructing Giuffre to have sex with anyone.

Her testimony about Sjoberg, PDF page 29, transcript page 61, is more qualified. Maxwell said she did not believe she had instructed Sjoberg to massage Glenn and had no recollection of it. A categorical denial and a lack of recollection are different answers and should remain different in a summary.

These answers conflict with Giuffre’s account of Maxwell’s instructions. Maxwell’s later conviction in her own criminal case did not produce a verdict deciding whether Glenn Dubin committed the conduct Giuffre alleged. Nor does the existence of the denial resolve the allegation in Dubin’s favor.

Sjoberg described a nonsexual massage at the apartment

Johanna Sjoberg’s May 18, 2016 deposition, PDF pages 114 through 116, transcript pages 113 through 115, records her remembering an apartment on Breakers Row and giving massages there. She thought there might have been more than one visit but clearly remembered only one.

Her explicit answer, transcript page 114, was that nothing sexual happened with either Glenn or his wife. She recalled carrying a massage table upstairs. She connected possession of the table to the period when she attended massage school, which she tentatively placed around 2003. This is an approximate memory anchor, not a confirmed appointment date.

The following questions, transcript page 115, asked whether Glenn requested a massage on the floor and whether she discussed Glenn with Giuffre. Sjoberg did not recall either. The lawyer’s question about the floor does not establish that such a request occurred.

Sjoberg’s testimony establishes her own described experience. It neither alleges sexual misconduct by Glenn against her nor supplies eyewitness corroboration of Giuffre’s separate alleged encounter. Keeping the two women’s accounts distinct is essential to understanding the evidence.

Rizzo’s account of a distressed girl at the Dubins’ home

Rinaldo Rizzo’s final deposition excerpt comes from testimony taken June 10, 2016. Rizzo had worked for the Dubins. The excerpt describes a girl who arrived with Epstein and Maxwell, appeared severely distressed and spoke to Rizzo and his wife in the kitchen. He recalled shaking, confusion and fear.

Rizzo’s account of her disclosure contains two levels of evidence. He personally observed her condition and heard her speak. Her account of the island, sexual demands, the taking of her passport and threats was information she related to him. He did not witness those island events himself.

The clarification on transcript page 59 is important. Rizzo said she did not identify who asked her for sex. She referred to “they,” then described Ghislaine and Sarah in connection with the passport. A summary that simply states Rizzo witnessed Maxwell demand sex would materially overstate his testimony.

The later part of the excerpt, transcript pages 58 through 60, records Rizzo saying he heard Eva tell the girl she would work for her in the city as a nanny. He said he later saw the girl during a flight to Sweden, perhaps a month afterward, and described her leaving at an airport stop. He also testified that she told him she was 15. He dated the last event he was discussing to late 2004 or 2005. The sequence should not be assigned a more exact year or tied to a particular flight manifest without further verification.

Rizzo also said he and his wife resigned around October 2005 after discussing the incidents and finding the last one intolerable. That is his explanation of the aftermath.

Rizzo’s evidence does not establish that Glenn requested sex from the girl, took her passport or heard her kitchen disclosure. The girl’s stated age and reported experience are central to the testimony, but she remains unidentified here. Later reports about other Swedish au pairs are not proof that any of them was the same person.

Maxwell’s response and the challenge to Rizzo’s credibility

Maxwell’s July 22, 2016 deposition, transcript pages 162 through 164, contains her denials of recalling the distressed girl at the Dubin residence or taking a passport from anyone who said Epstein demanded sex. Her responses are part of the contested record, rather than independent confirmation of either account.

Maxwell’s lawyers challenged Rizzo’s credibility, PDF page 25, citing his prior litigation against the Dubins and an asserted interest in compensation. Rizzo’s own cross examination, PDF page 5, transcript page 131, records him acknowledging that he had sought a lawyer in connection with litigation against the Dubins from which he hoped to recover money. He rejected the suggestion that he was seeking money from Epstein. This supplies context for evaluating the defense’s argument; it does not establish that the kitchen account was false.

Epstein’s response to Rizzo reached Glenn within three days

EFTA00825780 preserves the June 13, 2016 exchange. Epstein told Glenn that “renaldo” had given a deposition saying he brought young girls to North Salem on multiple occasions. Epstein dismissed it as nonsense and said he thought Glenn should know. Glenn’s response was a single expression of dismay, “uuugghh.”

The earlier outgoing copy and the copy containing Glenn’s reply are one correspondence sequence. They do not establish two warnings. The warning followed the June 10 deposition by three days and shows that the testimony was being discussed privately, before its later public circulation.

The email supports a narrow but significant conclusion: Glenn received Epstein’s account of Rizzo’s testimony and responded. It does not reveal what Glenn already knew, whether he had read the deposition, what he meant by his reaction or whether any further conversation occurred. Epstein’s dismissive summary is also not a reliable substitute for Rizzo’s actual testimony.

Contact continued after the Florida conviction

The July 2008 correspondence shows Eva sending affectionate messages while Epstein was in custody, asking about his circumstances and discussing travel and family news. Lesley Groff said she would get one of the messages to him. The exchange documents continued access through an assistant. It should be attributed to Eva, rather than rewritten as a message Glenn sent.

The November 16, 2009 email was sent from Eva’s account and closed with the names Eva and Glenn Dubin. It acknowledged Epstein’s sex offender status and his guilty pleas involving prostitution and a minor, and expressed being completely comfortable with him around their children. Some wording is redacted in this production; fuller copies and the associated probation record provide the context.

The fuller probation file, PDF pages 101 and 215, contains the email; pages 133 and 134 contain the officer’s November 23 contact entry. The officer recorded checking Eva’s awareness of the charges and the relevant probation condition. Eva assured the officer that the children would not be alone with Epstein, and the officer approved the visit. That supervision assurance is part of the record and should accompany the statement of comfort.

The email’s sender and its closing identify different things. It was sent by Eva and signed in both names; the document does not establish that Glenn separately drafted or transmitted it. The official contact entry establishes approval of a proposed Thanksgiving visit, not unrestricted access or a complete record of where the eventual holiday meal occurred.

An August 14, 2010 message invited Epstein to visit the following week and mentioned that a daughter would have five friends over. The full chain concerns Epstein’s location and a helicopter. It documents an invitation after his conviction. It does not establish the guests’ ages, that the proposed visit happened or that sexual activity was intended. The children and their friends are not implicated by being mentioned.

Apartment arrangements show coordination across both offices

The May 2014 chain begins with Eva reporting that friends had left an apartment. Groff then offered a studio to another guest, with a stay from May 16 to May 23. Eva’s assistant Kimberly Feierstein confirmed the planned move and later tried to contact the guest. By May 19, Groff and Bella Klein were coordinating a telephone service problem because Eva’s office was trying to reach the occupant.

That later exchange goes beyond an unaccepted invitation. It documents staff discussing an actual guest in the apartment and trying to restore a means of contact. The messages do not establish her age, employment status or any sexual activity. Her identity and contact details are unnecessary to describe the arrangement.

The March 2, 2015 request is explicitly headed “Jeffrey Epstein Apartment for Swedish Girl.” Groff wrote that Eva had called seeking accommodation for ten days. Renovations, other guests and staff movements meant the guest would have to change apartments during the stay. The message described cleaning schedules and asked when she wanted to arrive.

The March 3 follow through records Amanda D’Cruz saying Eva accepted the arrangement and would speak to the guest. A later message said the sender had spoken with Eva and set a morning departure from one apartment and an evening move into another. The longer chain includes a request about storing bags with the doorman between the two times.

The automatic reply merely reports that Feierstein no longer worked at Dubin and Company and directs inquiries to D’Cruz. Read alone, its subject line tells very little. The complete chain identifies the request, the staffing handoff, the proposed accommodation and the practical follow through. None of those documents identifies the guest as Rizzo’s girl or supplies evidence that she was a minor.

A model’s résumé was forwarded and a meeting requested

The August 8, 2014 email records Eva forwarding a message and résumé from Angelina Jolin to Epstein. Eva described the applicant as a Swedish model seeking work as an assistant. The source supports a specific employment referral, rather than an inference drawn solely from a social photograph or an address book.

The August 19 continuation shows Epstein forwarding the correspondence to Groff with an instruction to see whether the applicant could stop by. That is a second stage in the arrangement: a résumé referral followed by a request to organize a meeting.

No completed meeting, employment contract, wage payment or sexual encounter was established by the reviewed continuation. The applicant’s age is not supplied by the cited emails. She is not identified here, and the record is not linked to the anonymous Swedish girl in Rizzo’s account. A documented referral and a completed hire must remain distinct.

The family’s March 2026 statement to SVT said Eva never helped hire women to work for Epstein and never employed women who had previously worked for him. The 2014 emails establish the narrower acts of forwarding a résumé and Epstein requesting a visit. They do not, by themselves, resolve the broader question of whether a hire occurred or establish the family’s knowledge of any crime.

An introduction to Eva that needs its complete ending

The November 2013 correspondence includes Epstein telling a woman that he would introduce her to Eva, whom he described as having many men to introduce her to. The fuller chain preserves the woman’s later response: she thanked him for the introduction, praised Eva and the Breast Center, and said Eva would look out for suitable men.

The correspondence therefore documents more than Epstein’s initial proposal. It includes a report that the introduction occurred. But it provides no evidence of a paid sexual service, coercion or an encounter with Glenn. Reducing the chain to Epstein’s provocative phrasing would omit the recipient’s account of an ordinary social introduction and a visit to a medical facility.

The February 3, 2011 invitation is another example of why the reply matters. Epstein invited Eva to a gathering he described as including eight Swedish female economists. Eva declined because of another commitment. The record supports an invitation and a refusal, not her attendance or participation in whatever else occurred that evening.

The 2012 benefit linked invitations, guests and social access

Eva’s October 17, 2012 email asked Epstein whether he would take a table again at the Dubin Breast Center benefit scheduled for December 10. She offered him a place with her or his own table. It documents a direct invitation after his conviction and suggests an earlier table purchase, without supplying a receipt for that earlier event.

The November 14 forwarded invitation identifies Eva and Glenn among the benefit’s co chairs and places the event at the Mandarin Oriental. Epstein told recipients that he had taken a table so they could dress up. Karyna Shuliak thanked him for including them. The invitation lists several table prices, but the email does not establish which tier Epstein purchased or what amount cleared.

The November 30 to December 3 guest chain shows Groff supplying names and asking about substitutions because two proposed guests might not attend. The list also contains redacted entries and a “Mrs. Jeffrey Epstein” entry. That designation should not be used to invent a legal marriage or identify a redacted guest. A preliminary list is not a final attendance register.

These records show the infrastructure of social access: a direct invitation, a table, guests, assistants and a prestigious setting. They do not establish that everyone attending knew about abuse or that a charitable event was itself a trafficking arrangement.

Later massage correspondence includes ordinary spa services

The November 26, 2012 email records Eva thanking Epstein for an excellent Thai massage and describing how relaxed she felt. The provider’s name is redacted. The message does not describe sexual activity, establish the provider’s age or say Glenn received a massage.

The February 2016 spa correspondence discusses gifts of deep tissue massage sessions associated with Pursoma Sacred Space in New York. The provider proposed ten sessions for the Dubin Center and explained a wellness concept. Groff offered to connect the provider with Eva and help with the scheduling information.

Groff’s February 9 introduction then put Eva and the provider in contact. Her February 24 message asked whether she could use a session herself after noticing that the booking page described the gift as intended for doctors associated with Eva and the center.

Those follow through messages supply an explicitly professional context for these particular massage references. Their existence does not resolve the older abuse allegations. It does show why searches for a surname plus “massage” require individual reading rather than a single interpretation applied to all results.

A May 2015 dinner has a documented response afterward

The May 4 and 5 invitation chain shows Epstein forwarding Thursday dinner arrangements to Eva and Glenn, with Glenn asking the time. The May 7 staff message lists Glenn among confirmed guests for a dinner involving Woody Allen, Soon Yi Previn and several comedians. Its function is logistical: arrival times and a guest count.

Glenn’s message afterward, timestamped May 8 at 2:05 a.m. UTC and quoted elsewhere as May 7 at 10:05 p.m. locally, thanks Epstein for an enjoyable night and mentions a story and Allen’s laughter. This is evidence of a reported completed social event, rather than merely a calendar entry.

Epstein’s reply says he was glad Glenn came and proposes another gathering. The reply extends the chain but does not prove the next dinner happened. Nothing in these messages describes a sexual encounter. The participants’ other public controversies do not change what this particular correspondence establishes.

Household staffing and later hospitality continued

The December 27, 2016 correspondence records Eva saying she had spoken with Glenn and they were interested in exploring a household couple taking a position in North Salem. She asked Epstein whether to raise it with the prospective worker; he encouraged her to do so. This is a staffing inquiry that expressly mentions consultation with Glenn, although the reviewed chain does not establish that the couple was hired.

The November 2016 exchange records Eva thanking Epstein for coming and Epstein thanking her for having him. A November 2018 exchange explicitly thanks him for celebrating Thanksgiving with them, and his reply says he had a good time. These messages document hospitality and continuity of contact. Neither is a complete guest list, and neither identifies a sexual encounter.

The November 29, 2015 flight message separately records Shuliak thanking Eva for letting her fly with them, followed by Eva checking whether her car had arrived. It supports a reported completed flight and transport follow through, without independently identifying every passenger, the aircraft or the route.

Island visits and transport require separate kinds of proof

Jes Staley’s July 24, 2026 House testimony, pages 185 through 189, examines passenger records for his family’s February 2005 travel. Counsel described flights to the Virgin Islands on February 18, to Palm Beach on February 21 and back to Teterboro on February 22. Staley acknowledged staying on Epstein’s island with the Dubins and accepted that the records indicated a longer visit than the single night he had previously recalled.

Staley’s qualification on page 188 matters: he did not know whether everyone on the flight manifests stayed on the island. His recollection of his family and the Dubins is not a complete island attendance list. Nor does it establish sexual conduct by any member of either family.

The March 27, 2012 transport email asks what vehicle will collect Epstein and three unnamed people described as girls at West Palm Beach after a flight on the Dubins’ private plane. It is a logistical request. It provides no ages, does not establish Glenn’s presence on the aircraft and does not identify a sexual purpose. The name of the aircraft’s owner cannot substitute for a passenger manifest.

The fuller transport chain confirms a driver, while the March 30 update records the revised departure and arrival times. Crucially, the March 29 crew briefing lists three passengers in total for the March 30 White Plains to West Palm Beach leg: Epstein, Shuliak and one redacted person. It assigns Eva to different legs the following day. The earlier description of Epstein plus three girls is therefore not a reliable final passenger count. These are planning and briefing records, not proof of everyone’s completed movements.

The February and March 2017 chain shows D’Cruz arranging a family guest’s island visit with a girlfriend, saying Eva had spoken with Epstein and obtained approval. Groff coordinated airport pickup and island staff and later checked revised dates. The record describes access, scheduling and transportation, rather than a sexual allegation. The guests need not be named to explain the arrangement.

The March 15 aftermath records Epstein relaying a staff report of vehicle damage attributed to the guests. Glenn apologized and asked Epstein to have his office send him the bill. This is a request to handle an expense after a reported visit. The chain supplies neither an amount nor evidence that reimbursement was completed.

The June and July 2018 travel chain demonstrates the opposite limitation. Epstein asked Groff to arrange first class tickets for Eva through Paris to Gothenburg, and staff discussed his Paris apartment and offered a driver. The chain ends with Eva deciding to take the family’s plane directly to Sweden. The initial offer should not be reported as a completed ticket purchase or an actual Paris stay.

The Highbridge fee has an invoice and a processed wire

EFTA02816421, an exhibit in the United States Virgin Islands litigation against JPMorgan, contains a December 28, 2004 Financial Trust Company invoice to Ron Resnick at Highbridge for merger and acquisition advice. PDF page 2 contains a processed $15 million wire dated December 29, with Financial Trust Company as the ultimate credited entity. The source account’s owner is not identified on the visible wire image.

Epstein’s April 20, 2011 deposition, pages 87 through 91, describes a broader $20 million arrangement. He testified that $15 million went to Financial Trust Company and $5 million to an entity he called Financial Strategy Group. He said the latter payment benefited him by covering expenses he or his company otherwise would have paid. His uncertainty about the entity’s ownership should not be edited out.

The same deposition, pages 94 through 97, attributes the proposed fee to a discussion with Dubin after agreement on the Highbridge transaction and describes the invoice as the $15 million portion. This is Epstein’s testimony about the arrangement. The processed wire independently documents the $15 million transaction; it does not independently prove every part of his account of the additional $5 million.

An accounting reproduction, page 10, contains a January 3, 2005 entry for $5 million to New York Strategy Group, LLC, associated with consulting and merger advice. That name differs from Epstein’s deposition wording. The reproduction’s accounting dates also differ from the wire date for the $15 million. Those discrepancies require reconciliation, rather than silently treating every differently dated entry as another payment.

Staley’s 2026 testimony, pages 17 and 18, attributes the advisory payment to Highbridge and expressly says Glenn and Henry Swieca did not pay it personally. JPMorgan’s litigation response, page 78, paragraphs 171 through 173, likewise denies that JPMorgan paid the fee and identifies a paying entity whose first word is redacted before “& Swieca Holdings, Inc.”

The August 2026 Senate Finance Democratic staff report, page 43, instead says JPMorgan paid $15 million, citing a newspaper article. That shorthand should not override the more specific invoice, wire, testimony and party response. The safe conclusion is that the transaction generated a documented $15 million payment to Epstein’s company, with Epstein testifying to a larger total and sources differing in how they described the paying entity.

The consulting draft in the same exhibit, pages 4 through 12, proposed a further $2.25 million in annual installments. Its signature blocks are blank. Epstein testified that no consulting agreement was entered. A proposed fee in an unsigned draft is not another completed payment.

None of these business records identifies a survivor as payee or documents a price for a sexual encounter. Their importance is the concrete financial relationship and the value Epstein claimed for arranging the Highbridge introduction.

Later investment distributions are not survivor settlements

The August 1, 2011 agreement fragment concerns Glenn Dubin, Epstein and Jeepers, Inc., in the context of an investment redemption dispute involving D. B. Zwirn and the successor Fortress fund. It is an incomplete copy containing printed pages 1 and 3. It should not be described as a complete executed agreement or a settlement with an abuse survivor.

The January 2013 correspondence supplies an additional link. Darren Indyke said a separate settlement with Dubin had been signed in connection with the Fortress settlement to assign his economic interest. Staff identified the files holding executed documents. This records counsel’s description of execution, rather than displaying all the signed pages itself.

The November 12, 2014 email chain records Richard Kahn saying Jeepers received a $222,549.24 fund distribution and was obliged to deliver it to Dubin. When Epstein questioned whether the money belonged to them, Kahn explained that distributions were to repay the $4,375,302 Dubin had sent under the backstop arrangement.

The December 10, 2015 accounting email dates receipt of the $4,375,302 to October 6, 2014 and lists subsequent distributions and repayment entries. It asks whether a new distribution should be sent to Dubin. The document is an accounting explanation and instruction request, not a bank statement proving every outgoing transfer.

These records provide a stated investment explanation for money moving between Dubin and Epstein’s entity. Their use of the word “settlement” does not turn them into a sexual misconduct settlement. They are also separate from the earlier Highbridge fee and the cash alleged in Giuffre’s account.

Jane, Eva and the disputed identification at Maxwell’s trial

Jane’s December 1, 2021 trial testimony, transcript pages 525 through 526, introduces a different evidentiary problem. Under cross examination, the protected witness agreed that she had told investigators a woman named Eva joined group sexualized massages, knew the routine and could confirm her account. No surname or photograph identified that woman on the stand. Jane later said the government had not shown her photographs of the women named, including Eva. The testimony should not be paraphrased as an unqualified identification of Eva Andersson-Dubin.

The government’s December 15 filing, pages 4 through 6, argued that defense counsel had not established that the woman Jane described was Dubin. Prosecutors acknowledged ambiguity in earlier interview accounts but said Jane had distinguished knowing Eva Dubin from knowing whether she participated in massages. Their argument that Dubin’s proposed denial would not contradict Jane was a litigation position, not a judicial finding resolving the identity.

The defense’s December 16 response, pages 4 through 6, disputed that interpretation. It linked Jane’s descriptions of Epstein’s Swedish former girlfriend and a former Miss Sweden to Dubin, and emphasized Jane’s statement that she did not recall another Eva. The defense also argued that an inability to remember Dubin participating was different from an affirmative denial. Presenting only either side’s filing would conceal the dispute.

The underlying FBI clarification report, pages 1 and 2, records Jane recognizing Eva Dubin as the former Miss Sweden, recalling her and her husband on flights, and not remembering Dubin participating in massages. It also records that she did not recall another Eva. The form dates the interview March 23, 2021, with entry on August 9; the defense called it an August interview. It is an investigator’s summary rather than a verbatim recording.

Eva’s December 17 testimony, transcript pages 2664 through 2666, contains unequivocal denials of a group sexual encounter or sexualized massage with Jane. Under cross examination, she said she did not know what happened day to day at Epstein’s Palm Beach house and estimated visiting perhaps four times annually during the relevant years. On pages 2670 and 2671 she acknowledged memory difficulties. Those limitations belong alongside her denials; they do not establish that she lied.

A January 22, 2021 prosecutor’s note shows investigators themselves exercising caution. After previously viewing Eva as a witness only, they found a first name reference in a sexualized-massage account and postponed a substantive interview because they lacked clarity. The note does not establish a charge, a formal suspect designation or corroboration of the underlying allegation.

Denials, a corrected transcript and the limits of legal status

Dubin’s spokesperson reiterated his denial to The Independent in January 2024, describing the allegations as unsubstantiated and restating the position given in 2019. The family’s March 2026 statement to SVT separately denied Eva’s knowledge of Epstein’s criminal conduct and said she would have severed ties and reported him had she known. These are attributed responses, not independent determinations of the underlying facts.

Judge Loretta Preska’s January 10, 2024 order also prevents treating a circulated deposition excerpt as an Epstein confession. The court struck the filing containing an erroneously transcribed answer at page 217, lines 17 through 19, and ordered a redacted replacement. Its earlier ruling, page 16, explained that the deposition video showed a stenographic error. The apparent admission cannot responsibly be offered as evidence. Correcting it does not adjudicate Giuffre’s allegation.

No public Epstein related criminal charge or judicial finding against Glenn Dubin was located in the sources reviewed through September 30, 2026. That conclusion should not be expanded into a claim that no investigation exists. Pamela Bondi’s May 29 congressional interview, page 99, illustrates the distinction: asked about a pending or open Dubin investigation, she referred the question to other officials rather than affirming or denying one. A congressional question, subpoena or list of names is not an indictment or finding of guilt.

What the Swedish reporting adds and what remains separate

SVT’s interviews published in March 2026 include former nannies describing Epstein visiting Dubin homes after his conviction. One said another employee warned her to be careful around him. Another said Epstein groped her while asking for cookies. These are attributed allegations and observations from journalistic interviews. The report does not establish that Glenn witnessed that alleged touching or identify the women as the girl in Rizzo’s deposition.

SVT’s March 19, 2026 investigation reports accounts from former au pairs who lived in the apartment building used by Epstein and describes the family’s acknowledgment that Eva had an apartment there for guests, family and friends. The family said no au pair complained to them about the accommodation or Epstein and that, to their knowledge, no minor lived in the building.

The family’s published response said all the Swedish au pairs were over 18, most were relatives or family friends, and Eva had never witnessed, suspected or known of Epstein’s criminal behavior. It said she would have severed contact and reported him had she known what later emerged.

The response concerns the family’s account of what it knew and did. It does not erase the separately documented 2009 acknowledgment of Epstein’s conviction. The distinction is between knowledge of a known conviction and the claimed absence of knowledge about the broader conduct later described by accusers and investigators.

The former au pairs’ accounts, the 2014 résumé referral, the 2015 apartment guest and Rizzo’s description concern different source records. Shared nationality and housing access are insufficient to merge the women into a single person or establish that Glenn personally arranged every placement.

Timeline chart

Date or periodRecord or developmentEvidentiary significance
Date unresolved, described retrospectivelyGiuffre’s Breakers accountAlleged introduction, sexual encounter and payments; she said she was 16
Around 2003 or later, according to her estimateSjoberg’s massage recollectionA separately described nonsexual service
Late 2004 or 2005Rizzo’s accountA distressed girl’s disclosure and subsequent household and travel recollections
December 2004Processed Highbridge fee wire$15 million to Financial Trust Company; separate testimony describes a broader total
February 2005Staley’s later acknowledgmentIsland stay with the Dubins, without proof of sexual conduct
November 2009Comfort email and probation reviewContinuing access despite acknowledged conviction
November and December 2012Benefit correspondenceTable and guest arrangements
August 2014Résumé and requested visitEmployment referral with no completed hire established
March 2015Apartment correspondenceTwo offices coordinate accommodation and a room change
May 2015Glenn’s dinner messageReported attendance and a social response afterward
June 2016Deposition and private reactionRizzo testified; Epstein warned Glenn three days later
March 2017Travel and damage discussionGuest logistics followed by a bill request, with no completed reimbursement established
September 2019Later FBI interviewRepeated allegation about instructions, with a different general payment account
December 2021Maxwell’s criminal trialEva testified; identification and memory issues were disputed; no verdict against Glenn
March 2026Swedish reporting and family responseRenewed examination of au pairs and housing, with denials
July and August 2026Congressional testimony and financial reviewAdditional travel and business context, not a judicial determination of the sexual allegations

Key takeaways

  • The strongest evidence is specific about the act it documents. Giuffre alleged sexual conduct and payments. Sjoberg described a nonsexual massage. Rizzo described a disclosure he heard and a distressed girl he observed. Those are three distinct accounts.
  • Giuffre’s 2011 and 2019 payment descriptions should be read together. The earlier account attributes cash to Dubin; the later general statement says she was not paid by third parties. The reviewed record does not resolve that difference.
  • The June 2016 exchange is direct evidence that Epstein and Glenn discussed Rizzo’s deposition. Glenn’s short reply cannot reliably supply a detailed account of his knowledge, intentions or prior conduct.
  • The correspondence documents continuing social and practical access after Epstein’s conviction, including apartment arrangements, referrals, dinners and hospitality. The acts of Eva, Glenn and their assistants should be attributed separately.
  • Business fees, investment obligations, charitable purchases and household expenses require their own accounting. They should not be folded into a single allegation of payment for sexual services.
  • Family members, guests, au pairs and women mentioned in scheduling records are not implicated merely by proximity. Redacted people should not be identified through speculative matching.

Unanswered questions

  • Can contemporaneous appointment, building, telephone or travel records establish the precise date of the Breakers encounter Giuffre alleged?
  • Do any independently authenticated records corroborate the cash payments described in the 2011 interview, and can the difference from the 2019 payment statement be explained?
  • What information did Glenn receive about Rizzo’s account beyond Epstein’s June 2016 email, and did he review the actual deposition?
  • Are there independently verified records that establish the age, travel history and subsequent welfare of the girl Rizzo described, without exposing her identity publicly?
  • Did the August 2014 employment referral result in a meeting or hire, and what records document the outcome?
  • Can housing and employment records distinguish each apartment guest and au pair arrangement without assuming that shared nationality means shared identity or experience?
  • What contemporaneous invoices, bank entries and recipient records resolve the different descriptions of Epstein’s Highbridge fee and its total?

Chronological receipt index

The entries below are ordered by the date of the document or recorded proceeding. Retrospective accounts may describe much earlier events; repeated productions are identified as copies rather than additional encounters.

Sources

Tags:
Previous George Mitchell and Jeffrey Epstein: The Arrangement Records
Next Greg “Pink” Francis
Table of Contents