116 East 65th Street: Ghislaine Maxwell’s Manhattan Townhouse
Snapshot
| Field | Documented information |
|---|---|
| Historical property | 116 East 65th Street, Manhattan, New York |
| Principal association | Ghislaine Maxwell’s residence, held through 116 East 65th Street LLC |
| Documented residential period | Maxwell testified that it was essentially her primary residence from 2000 until its 2016 sale |
| Acquisition | July 6, 2000, for $4,950,000, according to a 2020 investigative property analysis |
| Legal purchaser and seller | 116 East 65th Street LLC |
| Maxwell’s ownership testimony | In April 2019, she said she believed she was the LLC’s sole member and that Darren Indyke helped create it |
| Banking connection | JPMorgan records linked the property account to Epstein and described its payment of Maxwell’s residence expenses |
| Household funding | Ted Waitt described monthly contributions toward the house and staff; congressional counsel identified $30,000 monthly payments in records from 2008 through at least April 2010 |
| Sale | April 14, 2016, for $15,075,000, according to the investigative analysis |
| Documented sale deposits | Three checks totaling $14,202,689.97 deposited in the LLC’s UBS account |
| Later disposition | A separate $16 million resale was reported in 2022, after the LLC had disposed of the property |
| Principal source groups | Maxwell’s civil deposition, bank due diligence, federal investigative emails, a defense financial report, and Waitt’s congressional interview |
| Last checked | October 7, 2026 |
116 East 65th Street appears in Maxwell’s sworn property testimony as her principal New York home. The townhouse also generated an unusually detailed documentary record of company ownership, household expenses, banking administration, a multimillion dollar sale and the movement of its proceeds. Those records make the address a distinct part of the Epstein and Maxwell property history.
The 2020 investigative analysis identifies the same limited liability company as purchaser in 2000 and seller in 2016. Maxwell described herself as its sole member in a 2019 deposition. Bank records separately linked the account relationship to Jeffrey Epstein. These sources concern different forms of ownership and control, and their distinctions are central to understanding the property.
The townhouse should also be distinguished from Epstein’s mansion at 9 East 71st Street. The two addresses occur in overlapping social, financial and litigation records, but evidence concerning one cannot automatically be assigned to the other.
Important Points
- The documented purchaser and seller was 116 East 65th Street LLC. Describing the building as Maxwell’s home does not mean every deed was recorded in her individual name.
- Maxwell testified that the house was essentially her primary residence from 2000 through its 2016 sale. Her testimony provides stronger evidence of residential use than a mailing address alone.
- In the same deposition, Maxwell said she believed she was the LLC’s sole member. She identified Epstein’s lawyer Darren Indyke as the lawyer who helped create it.
- A 2009 JPMorgan record describes the property account as paying real estate taxes and other residence expenses. It also says Epstein’s office managed Maxwell’s affairs.
- Waitt’s 2026 congressional interview adds firsthand testimony about financial support for the house and staff. His explanation of his own purpose is separate from proof of how every payment was ultimately spent.
- The investigative record gives a $4.95 million purchase price and $15.075 million sale price. Neither the difference between those figures nor the gross sale price is a calculation of Maxwell’s personal profit.
- Federal analysts tracked approximately $14.2 million in sale deposits and later transfers, while explicitly cautioning that commingled funds prevented a precise tracing of every dollar.
- The address appeared in records for ELLMAX and TerraMar. Maxwell disputed that the house functioned as a commercial workplace, describing some address entries as administrative conveniences.
- A civil complaint later identified a brief visit to the townhouse as an allegation. That is distinct from a judicial finding that abuse occurred at this address.
The House as Maxwell’s Residence
Maxwell’s April 9, 2019 deposition was taken in a New York property liability case, Barr and Gardner v. City of New York and 116 East 65th Street LLC. It concerned an alleged September 9, 2015 accident outside the property. The transcript was filed in the state court proceeding in March 2020 and later appeared in the released federal records.
On printed pages 8 and 9, Maxwell identified two homes she owned in September 2015: the East 65th Street property and her London house. She described East 65th Street as her primary residence and said that she lived there despite frequent travel. On printed pages 69 and 70, she agreed that the property had essentially been her primary residence from 2000 until the 2016 sale.
Government Exhibit 610-A preserves an excerpt of that same deposition. Its presence in the Maxwell prosecution provides another route to the testimony, but it is not a second independent witness or an independent title search. The fuller EFTA01306406 version is more useful for the house’s company structure, residential use and sale arrangements.
Maxwell described a substantial multistory townhouse. Her approximate recollections of its size and features varied from figures in later property marketing. Architectural dimensions are therefore less certain than the address and the residential relationship. The historical significance of the building rests primarily on what the financial and court records show about its use and administration.
The deposition was not a criminal trial about conduct inside the house. Questions about whether business was conducted there arose in a property case. Her answers remain sworn evidence, while the subject and purpose of the questioning must remain visible.
Acquisition in 2000 and the Property Company
The property analysis at EFTA01654828 records a July 6, 2000 purchase for $4,950,000 by 116 East 65th Street LLC. The analyst identified the property by its Manhattan parcel, block 1399, lot 65, and stated that the analysis drew on open source research, JPMorgan and UBS productions, and the CLEAR investigative database.
The analysis was expressly a draft for discussion and subject to change. It was not a certified deed, a final forensic accounting opinion or a court judgment. It is nevertheless unusually specific about the purchase, sale, account deposits and supporting banking productions.
Maxwell’s deposition, printed pages 24 through 26, supplies her account of the company. After initially expressing uncertainty about when it was formed relative to the purchase, she said that she formed it sometime in 2000. She believed she was the sole member and did not believe there had been other members. She identified the LLC as the building’s owner.
Maxwell said Indyke helped create the company and that he worked for her friend Jeffrey Epstein. She did not remember precisely how Indyke became involved. That testimony supports a legal and administrative connection to Epstein’s office. It does not establish, by itself, that Epstein personally supplied the entire purchase price or owned the company.
On printed page 33, Maxwell estimated the acquisition price at approximately $6 million. The later investigative analysis lists the more specific $4.95 million figure. The two should not be silently harmonized: one is her approximate recollection nearly nineteen years afterward; the other is an investigator’s transaction summary based on records and research. A complete closing file would be the strongest basis for resolving every component of the purchase cost.
The records establish three distinct relationships: the LLC held the building; Maxwell occupied it and testified to sole membership; financial institutions recorded connections to Epstein. Legal title, residential use and bank administration answer different questions.
Banking Administration and Epstein’s Office
A February 2009 JPMorgan due diligence page, EFTA01582849, describes Maxwell as an existing client referred by Epstein. It identifies the account’s practical role as paying taxes and other expenses for her New York residence at the address in the account title. It also states that Epstein’s office managed her affairs.
The page is important because it describes an operating function. The account was not merely a name in an address book. The bank understood it as an account through which the costs of Maxwell’s home were paid. The document also acknowledged Epstein’s felony conviction and imprisonment while discussing the wider banking relationship.
The accompanying client hierarchy page, EFTA01582850, links 116 East 65th St., LLC to Jeffrey E. Epstein in the bank’s decision maker structure. A later profile at EFTA01582949 expressly lists Epstein as decision maker and says the bank was in the process of exiting the relationship.
These are internal banking classifications. They establish what the bank recorded about the relationship and are relevant to who could influence its administration. They are not substitutes for an LLC operating agreement, a membership register or a deed. The later profile also contains administrative details that require independent confirmation, so its entry should not be used to settle the company’s formation date.
This property record illustrates why the broader Ghislaine Maxwell Entities network must be assessed entity by entity. A company associated with her residence could simultaneously involve her personal financial interests, Epstein’s office and advisers who worked across several separate structures.
Ted Waitt’s Contributions to the Household
Ted Waitt’s April 30, 2026 congressional interview provides a separate account of the house’s financial support. Counsel showed him a May 2008 statement for the property LLC and described $30,000 monthly payments continuing through at least April 2010. Counsel estimated the total at approximately $720,000.
Waitt said the payments represented what he considered his share of household and staff expenses. He explained that he maintained an office at the residence, kept clothes there and spent time there. On the following page, he described the support as primarily related to staff, including a driver and housekeeper, and said he believed the monthly arrangement continued until his relationship with Maxwell ended.
His testimony supports his intended purpose and his use of the property. It is not a complete expenditure audit. Asked why the money went to the LLC rather than Maxwell personally, Waitt said he was making assumptions about the funds being used for the house. He explicitly qualified that answer as speculation.
On printed page 63, counsel also put to Waitt an understanding that Indyke controlled the LLC. Waitt said he did not recall interactions with Indyke and remembered hearing Darren’s name as someone Maxwell dealt with. The question itself is not proof of legal ownership or exclusive control. Maxwell’s membership testimony and the bank’s decision maker records are the more direct evidence for those separate issues.
Nothing in this property funding exchange establishes that Waitt’s household payments financed an offense or that he knew of abuse. The relevant contribution to the address history is the documented discussion of an independently funded household arrangement alongside the Epstein linked banking administration.
A Residence Used as an Entity Address
The full 2019 deposition examined the relationship between the home and Maxwell’s business or charitable activities. It discussed ELLMAX and TerraMar records that used the address, the presence of an office or computer, and her handling of paperwork.
Maxwell denied conducting ELLMAX business from the house and said that she went to clients’ offices. She also described moving a desk and filing cabinet within the residence. These answers show the limits of a simple residential versus business label: a home can contain work materials and appear in company paperwork without every activity of the company taking place there.
Printed pages 54 through 57 address TerraMar tax returns. Maxwell acknowledged the East 65th Street address and described it as an address of convenience. She said there was no other TerraMar address in 2014 or 2015 and discussed remote contract work. The testimony does not establish that every TerraMar director or contractor worked physically at the house.
On printed pages 69 and 70, questioning returned to the residential character of the property. Maxwell denied retail or wholesale space and described sleeping there when she was in town. These details matter because later summaries sometimes treat the appearance of multiple entity names at one address as proof of a shared operational headquarters. The primary testimony supports administrative overlap while also recording her contrary description of how the space was used.
The 2016 Sale
The June 2020 investigative analysis records an April 14, 2016 sale by the LLC for $15,075,000. The sale date and price are materially more precise than contemporary shorthand describing a $15 million transaction.
Maxwell’s deposition, printed pages 32 and 76 through 77, confirms that she used Douglas Elliman to sell the property and did not attend the closing herself. She said a lawyer attended on her behalf. The testimony does not establish every step of the closing or identify the source of each deduction from the sale price.
The 2020 analysis records three checks deposited into the LLC’s UBS account on the date of sale. Their combined value was $14,202,689.97. That is lower than the $15,075,000 gross price. Without the full closing statement, the difference cannot responsibly be allocated among commissions, taxes, liens, adjustments or other costs.
Similarly, subtracting the $4.95 million recorded acquisition price from the $15.075 million gross sale price produces a nominal price increase, not a net profit calculation. It leaves out improvements, maintenance, financing, taxes and the allocation of economic interests. The property’s importance to Maxwell’s later finances is established by the large cash movement, without needing an unsupported personal profit figure.
Sale Proceeds, Maxwell’s UBS Account and the Angara Trust
A July 1, 2020 federal email, EFTA00026525, gives a concise summary of the deposit sequence. It lists three checks of $3,609,665.75, $9,031,636.31 and $1,561,387.91. The email says that UBS documents identified Maxwell as owner of the LLC titled account and that approximately $14.19 million moved to her personal UBS account on April 20, 2016.
The same email reports that $14.25 million moved from Maxwell accounts to the Angara Trust account at UBS in November 2016. That later transfer is important, but it should not be described as a demonstrated dollar for dollar movement of the townhouse sale proceeds.
The longer June email chain gives the reason. The receiving Maxwell account already held approximately $4.2 million when the property money arrived, and additional funds moved into and out of it during the year. The analyst expressly said that the specific use of the sale proceeds could not be identified from that commingled account history.
The analyst separately identified a $2.5 million payment to Scott Borgerson, a $500,000 payment to Tidewater LLC and the later Angara transfer. These entries show movements from the account under review. They do not by themselves establish that each recipient received money originating in the townhouse sale, or that any recipient engaged in wrongdoing.
The correspondence also shows that the investigation was incomplete. Angara Trust statements were absent from the UBS production described in the chain, and the analyst discussed possible further subpoena requests. The draft contained slightly differing figures in its descriptions of the April transfer and the later trust movement. The approximately $14.19 million formulation avoids presenting one draft entry as a reconciled final total.
The strongest conclusion is that a large real estate asset became liquid funds under Maxwell’s account control and was followed by substantial transfers within a wider personal and trust structure. A complete tracing of its ultimate use requires more than the published summary emails.
The Defense Financial Report
Macalvins Limited’s financial condition report, EFTA00105525, was prepared for Maxwell’s lawyers and examined her finances from 2015 through 2020. It described the townhouse sale, the LLC’s UBS account and subsequent transfers to other Maxwell controlled accounts. It said some proceeds were used to buy other properties.
The accountants reported that the principal sources and uses of funds were accounted for. They also disclosed that they had not performed a full audit or audit procedures, lacked some contemporaneous bank information and relied in part on information supplied by Maxwell’s office and spouse.
Those qualifications are essential. The report is evidence of the defense’s financial presentation and the accountants’ stated conclusions, rather than an independent judicial determination of every transfer. Its reference to a 2015 tax return recording the sale is also inconsistent with the April 2016 transaction date in the investigative record. The property chronology here follows the specific purchase and sale analysis, with the discrepancy left visible rather than silently corrected.
The differing conclusions are not necessarily a direct factual contradiction. An investigator’s inability to identify which commingled dollars funded a particular payment is a different question from an accountant’s reconstruction of aggregate sources, uses and closing balances. Both claims must be assessed against their stated records and methods.
Appearance in a Civil Allegation
Paragraph 59 of the July 25, 2023 complaint in Doe v. Black describes Maxwell taking the pseudonymous plaintiff to a smaller townhouse near Epstein’s New York residence to collect things. The pleading identified that house as 116 East 65th Street on information and belief.
The limited point is the alleged visit and qualified address identification. The paragraph does not describe an assault at this property, and a complaint is not proof that the visit occurred. The allegation must not be merged with claims concerning Epstein’s separate East 71st Street mansion. The plaintiff’s pseudonym is retained here, and the property entry makes no finding about the wider contested case.
Later Resale and the End of Maxwell’s Property Connection
The Real Deal’s July 2022 property report described a later $16 million sale, with a May 20 closing and public records filed in June. That was a subsequent transaction by the buyers who acquired the townhouse in 2016. It was not another sale by Maxwell.
The distinction prevents a recurrent chronological error: a headline about a former Maxwell property changing hands does not mean she retained ownership or received its later sale price.
Maxwell was sentenced to twenty years in June 2022 following her December 2021 federal conviction. That conviction supplies the broader legal context, but it does not convert every residential expense, company record or later real estate transaction into a separately adjudicated offense.
Chronology
| Date | Event or record | Evidentiary significance |
|---|---|---|
| July 6, 2000 | LLC purchase recorded at $4,950,000 | Specific date and price in the investigative property analysis |
| 2000 through 2016 | Maxwell’s period of principal residential use, according to her testimony | Describes occupation rather than every detail of legal title |
| May 2008 through at least April 2010 | Monthly $30,000 payments discussed in Waitt’s interview | Counsel’s statement summary, accompanied by Waitt’s account of household support |
| February 2009 | JPMorgan due diligence describes residence expenses and Epstein’s office | Contemporaneous banking account purpose and administration |
| September 2015 | Date relevant to the property liability dispute | Basis for later questions about residence and business use |
| April 14, 2016 | LLC sells the house for $15,075,000 | The end of the documented holding period |
| April 14 and 20, 2016 | Sale checks deposited and funds transferred to Maxwell’s UBS account | Documented conversion of property value into account funds |
| November 2016 | Substantial transfers to Angara Trust | Subsequent financial movements with commingling limits |
| April 9, 2019 | Maxwell’s civil deposition | Sworn account of LLC membership, residence and sale arrangements |
| June and July 2020 | Investigative financial correspondence | Analysis of purchase, sale and the movement of proceeds |
| 2020 | Defense accountants prepare financial condition report | A separately qualified reconstruction of finances |
| 2022 | Subsequent $16 million resale reported | Later ownership history, separate from Maxwell’s sale |
| July 25, 2023 | Civil complaint alleges a brief visit to the house | Qualified allegation, not an adjudicated property finding |
| April 30, 2026 | Waitt’s congressional interview | Additional firsthand account of household use and contributions |
Evidence Appearances
| Record | Date or period | What it establishes or records | Principal limit |
|---|---|---|---|
| EFTA01306406, especially printed pages 8, 9, 24 to 26, 32, 33, 50, 54 to 57 and 69 to 77 | April 9, 2019 deposition | Maxwell’s testimony on residence, LLC membership, Indyke, entity addresses and sale | Witness testimony in a property liability case; not a complete title file |
| DOJ-OGR-00015788 to DOJ-OGR-00015797, Government Exhibit 610-A | Excerpt of the same deposition | Identifies the Manhattan and London homes | Duplicate excerpt, not independent corroboration |
| EFTA01582849, JPM-SDNY-00062427 | February 2009 | Account pays residence expenses; Epstein’s office manages Maxwell’s affairs | Internal bank account assessment |
| EFTA01582850, JPM-SDNY-00062428 | Companion due diligence page | Bank links LLC relationship to Epstein | Banking hierarchy is not a membership register |
| EFTA01582949, JPM-SDNY-00062534 | Later bank profile | Epstein decision maker entry and planned relationship exit | Administrative record does not prove exact closing date or beneficial title |
| EFTA01654828 to EFTA01654832 | June 2020 email chain | Purchase, sale, deposits, proposed further inquiries and commingling qualification | Explicitly a draft analysis |
| EFTA00026525 | July 1, 2020 email | Three sale checks and subsequent account transfers | Summary of records rather than the complete statement production |
| EFTA00105525, especially EFTA00105528 to EFTA00105530 | 2020 defense financial report | Accountants’ reconstruction of property proceeds and finances | No full audit; incomplete records; sale tax year discrepancy |
| Waitt congressional interview, printed pages 61 to 63 | April 30, 2026 | His household contributions and use of the house | Counsel’s calculations and his assumptions require separate attribution |
| Doe v. Black, Document 1, paragraph 59 | July 25, 2023 | Alleged brief visit to a house identified on information and belief | Pleading allegation, not proof of an assault at this address |
Related Articles
- Ghislaine Maxwell Entities: The broader company, trust and account network.
- 44 Kinnerton Street: Ghislaine Maxwell’s London Townhouse: The other home identified in Maxwell’s property testimony.
- 9 East 71st Street: Jeffrey Epstein’s Manhattan Townhouse: Epstein’s separate New York mansion.
- Tucked Away: Ghislaine Maxwell’s New Hampshire Hideout: The later property where she was arrested in 2020.
Sources
- EFTA01306406: Complete released Maxwell civil deposition file, including transcript and index; New York County filing dated March 5, 2020.
- Government Exhibit 610-A: DOJ-OGR-00015788 through DOJ-OGR-00015797; excerpt of Maxwell’s April 9, 2019 testimony.
- EFTA01582849: JPMorgan property account due diligence, JPM-SDNY-00062427.
- EFTA01582850: Client hierarchy and related person information, JPM-SDNY-00062428.
- EFTA01582949: Later client profile, JPM-SDNY-00062534.
- EFTA01654828: Five page investigative email chain about the purchase, sale and proceeds, with explicit draft qualifications.
- EFTA00026525: July 1, 2020 federal email summarizing checks and account movements.
- EFTA00105525: Macalvins Limited financial condition report prepared for Cohen & Gresser LLP.
- House Committee interview of Ted Waitt: April 30, 2026, especially printed pages 61 through 63.
- Doe v. Black complaint: July 25, 2023, Document 1, paragraph 59; cited only for the qualified property visit allegation.
- The Real Deal, July 1, 2022: Subsequent resale reporting based on public transaction records.
- Department of Justice sentencing announcement: June 28, 2022.