Bin Ennakhil Palace: Jeffrey Epstein’s Repeated Purchase Attempts

Snapshot

Key takeaways

• The palace was the subject of repeated approaches. A concrete 2015 proposal, a 2017 draft agreement and renewed 2019 offers are documented; 2016 messages show continuing interest rather than a verified fresh Epstein bid.
• The proposed buyer and transaction structure changed. Haze Trust offers in March 2019 and FT Real Estate instructions in June should not be collapsed into a single completed contract.
• A €23 million offer was expressly nonbinding. A broker later reported conditional acceptance, while contracts and supporting records remained under discussion.
• The $27.66 million total in Schwab’s report combines two payment attempts. It is not evidence that the seller received that sum or that Epstein acquired the palace.
• The records reviewed here do not establish that the palace became an Epstein property or that it was intended as a refuge from prosecution.

EFTA01036804; EFTA00523098; EFTA01265969. Bin Ennakhil was the subject of Jeffrey Epstein’s repeated attempts to buy a residence in Morocco. The evidence includes messages with property brokers, proposed purchases of the company holding the palace, nonbinding offers, a legal review warning against the proposed structure, bank instructions and a cancellation after Epstein’s arrest. The distinction between those stages is central to understanding what happened.

This account follows the documents’ stated dates, speakers and qualifications. Correspondence records what its participants said or proposed. It does not independently establish title, tax liability, completion of due diligence or the truth of every assurance. A person’s appearance in these records does not by itself establish wrongdoing.

The property and its name

Emir Nader and Samuel Owers’s BBC Eye Investigations report identifies Bin Ennakhil as a palace in Marrakech’s Palmeraie and names German businessman Gunter Kiss as its owner. Marc Leon told the BBC that Epstein’s interest dated to 2011. Those particulars are attributed reporting; the purchase correspondence examined below provides a more detailed record of later negotiations.

EFTA00851887; EFTA01036804; EFTA00552022; EFTA02316264. The name is not consistently spelled. Leon used “Bin Ennakhil” in July 2015. The August 2017 acquisition review used both “Bin Ennakhill” and “Bin Ennakhil.” Later messages shortened it to “Bin Palace,” while a June 2019 instruction spelled it “Bin ennikhil.” These variants refer to the same proposed acquisition in the linked chains.

Mark Lloyd’s separate lending correspondence

EFTA00657164, pages 1 to 4; EFTA01891147, pages 1 to 6. Separate correspondence documents lending dealings between Lloyd and Epstein before the palace negotiations examined here. In June 2012, Lloyd acknowledged receiving funds and asked where to send the signed promissory note. On 19 September, he told Richard Kahn that he had wired $165,000 to Epstein, including $5,000 that he calculated as interest. Kahn replied that day that JPMorgan had not yet seen the funds arrive and asked for a transfer reference. The exchange records Lloyd’s repayment report and Kahn’s immediate response, rather than a bank confirmation of settlement.

EFTA01205487, pages 1 and 5; EFTA01205484, pages 1 to 3. A promissory-note document dated 22 April 2015 names Lloyd as borrower and Epstein as lender for $160,000, at 2% annual interest, due on 21 July 2015. The released note’s signature line is blank. A related form titled “Affidavit of Consent Judgment” names the same parties and expressly refers to the 22 April note and $160,000 principal plus interest. Its civil case number, Lloyd’s signature and date, and notarial fields are blank. These unsigned copies do not establish that the note was executed or funded, a case was filed or a judgment was entered.

EFTA00842825, page 1. On 22 October 2015, Epstein called Lloyd a friend and offered help, while also insisting that money be paid before the year-end financials. He proposed “60k in nov and 60 in dec.” The message does not state a currency or identify a particular promissory note, and it does not confirm that those payments were made.

EFTA01017536, page 1. On 5 November 2018, Epstein asked Lloyd about house sales, “your loan?” and Marrakech. Lloyd replied that “The loan is not forgotten” and said he hoped to earn a €7.5 million commission for introducing a €500 million deal. His reply identifies neither the loan’s original date nor its principal and does not show that the commission was earned or used for repayment. It does not identify that loan as the April 2015 note. The reviewed records do not establish an outstanding amount during the 2019 palace negotiations or show that debt motivated Lloyd’s involvement.

2013 and 2014: early inquiries, with an earlier start reported

EFTA01757053; EFTA00969430. The earliest palace-specific correspondence located in this review dates to September 2013. A 1 September forward to Epstein contains an invitation to a Bin Ennakhil film folder. A 2 September forward contains Leon’s message from the previous day, explicitly naming the palace and describing its location, heating and construction. The redacted participants in these forwards are not identified here. These are records of information gathering, not written offers.

EFTA00968926; EFTA00862951. On 2 September, Epstein asked for a current video, staffing information, floor plans and technical details about the building and grounds. He referred to a principal without identifying that person. The record does not establish who that principal was or that another buyer had authorized him. In February 2015, he recalled sending someone to see the house the previous year, supporting an earlier reported inspection in 2014 without establishing its exact date.

EFTA02314180; BBC. Epstein also wrote in April 2019 that he had proposed 10 million six years earlier. That is a retrospective claim of a 2013 offer; the sentence does not specify currency. It is separate from the contemporaneous September 2013 inquiries. The BBC’s 2011 starting date remains attributed to Leon because a palace-specific 2011 original has not been located in this review.

2015: a concrete price proposal and a rental option

EFTA00862951, pages 1 and 2. A February to March 2015 chain records Epstein recognizing the house and describing its price as excessive and its construction as unfinished. Mark Lloyd’s account of a visit described four suites in the main house and another four in a partly completed guest house. Lloyd put the price then at €45 million. These are contemporary descriptions by the correspondents, rather than an independent survey.

EFTA00861995, pages 1 and 2. A March 2015 chain records direct scheduling between Epstein and Kiss through Gudula Freytag. On 8 March, Epstein wrote that Lloyd had his full confidence and represented his interest. In a reply signed by Kiss, sent through Freytag, Kiss said he did not know Lloyd and suggested making the visit arrangements directly to save time. On 18 March, Freytag offered a telephone appointment for the following day and Epstein said he would call. The chain documents arrangements and an intended call, not confirmation that the call occurred. Kiss’s message does not say that Lloyd was barred from attending.

EFTA00851887. On 9 July 2015, Leon told Epstein that Pamur Anstalt owned the palace, with Arcana Treuhand Anstalt in Vaduz as trustee. He described Rilton Investments Ltd as owning Pamur, with MMG Trust (BVI) Corp as trustee. The email named an attached spreadsheet of 2014 expenses. It is evidence of the ownership structure represented to Epstein at that point, not a substitute for company registers or a current land title.

EFTA02495986, pages 1 and 2. A 15 July 2015 chain moves beyond general interest. Epstein told Leon that he would send a contract at 20 million but did not want to upset Kiss. He then proposed buying at 20 and moving out if Kiss found a buyer above 35 within five years, provided Epstein received his money back. The specific proposal omits a currency symbol, although it appears in a euro-denominated price discussion. The record shows a proposal to the broker; it does not contain a sent contract, seller acceptance or confirmation that this final proposal reached Kiss.

EFTA02495986, pages 1 to 3. The same chain preserves the valuation disagreement. Epstein reported a Knight Frank opinion of 15 million and estimated upgrade costs. Leon disputed that assessment, said he had not conveyed Epstein’s comments to Kiss, and suggested a much higher purchase and resale strategy. Those are the participants’ descriptions and proposals, not an independently obtained Knight Frank valuation.

EFTA02489308, pages 1 and 2. The disagreement continued on 22 and 23 August. Leon suggested €40 million and said he would try to obtain acceptance. He also referred to Epstein having spent two hours in the palace. Epstein answered with lower-priced European property comparisons. The €40 million figure is the broker’s suggested bid, not a new offer made by Epstein, and the reference to a visit does not give its exact date.

EFTA00846907. A September 2015 exchange considered a different route. Asked whether Kiss was renting, Leon offered the possibility of a three month rental with an option to buy, at €360,000 per month deductible from the sale price. The correspondence does not show that Epstein accepted or occupied the property under that proposal.

2016: continued interest without a verified new bid

EFTA01781836. In a chain containing Epstein’s message dated 25 April 2016, Lloyd reported someone else’s €30 million offer, asked if Epstein was still interested and predicted that Kiss would reject it while seeking around €50 million. Lloyd’s own top header is partly obscured. An online archive labels the record as 2010, although the visible quoted message is from 2016. The other party’s bid cannot be counted as an Epstein offer.

EFTA01190251; EFTA00638688; EFTA00816957. Epstein checked again at the end of June. Leon’s 3 July reply said Kiss was awaiting a planned signature for sales of Marrakech and Seville, without identifying the buyer or price. That anticipated sale is not proof of completion: on 25 September, Lloyd explicitly said Bin Ennakhil remained unsold, and Epstein asked about the market. These records establish continued contact and market updates. They do not establish a separate Epstein offer in 2016.

EFTA02665496, page 1. On 15 December 2016, Lloyd again urged Epstein to meet Kiss one to one. He praised an earlier offer involving cash and an option for Kiss to sell to a higher-paying third party later, and expressed his view that agents encouraged sellers to wait for unrealistic offers. This is Lloyd’s retrospective assessment and proposed negotiating approach; it supplies no new price or seller acceptance.

2017: renewed inspection requests and an unsigned €25 million agreement

EFTA00634448; EFTA02655372. In April 2017, Lloyd told Epstein that Kiss would not permit further inspections without a substantial nonrefundable deposit. Epstein replied that he had wanted to show the property to a companion during a planned visit. Neither message records payment of that deposit or a resulting inspection.

EFTA01050706, page 1. On 4 April 2017, Lloyd recommended that Epstein meet Kiss alone, without agents, as the best route to an agreement. The same chain records Epstein seeking another visit and telling Lloyd that he intended to complain to Christie’s. It does not establish that a meeting occurred, a complaint was filed or the property was removed from the agency’s listings.

EFTA01042547. In June, Epstein circulated the palace’s earlier pictures and description to Linda Pinto, who responded favorably. This is another indication of continuing interest, without a new price proposal in that exchange.

EFTA00585171, pages 1, 2, 4 and 6. An actual six-page draft sale and share transfer agreement provides a separate record of the 2017 proposal. Marked DRAFT, it names Rilton Investments as seller and proposes €25 million for all Pamur founder rights, described as shares. It specifies payment and closing on 30 August 2017. The buyer’s name, representative details and both signature lines are blank. Its CHF 30,000 nominal company capital is distinct from the €25 million proposed price. This document is an unsigned draft, not an executed transfer.

EFTA01036804, pages 1 and 2. On 22 August 2017, Epstein forwarded an acquisition review to “Jabor Y.” The review concerned a proposed €25 million purchase from Rilton Investments Ltd of all Pamur Anstalt shares. Its author, unnamed in this copy, criticized the information available about the entities, tax and anti money laundering questions, limited warranties, lack of title and inspection protections, and an unrealistic 30 August closing date. The recommendation was to pass on the transaction. The document establishes advice being circulated, not a legal finding that the proposed transaction was unlawful.

EFTA02638849; EFTA02642186; EFTA01037141. Leon’s 24 August response explained that the earlier documents had been prepared in 2013 for another prospective purchaser. He said Pamur had since been attached directly to Maseru Development Ltd and that updated records would be available for a share transfer in Vaduz. Leon specified €25 million to a Liechtenstein bank and a separate €1 million fee to Marrakech. Epstein objected to the fee, the unexplained company chain and the clause making the buyer bear transaction taxes. His objections continued on 25 August. The parties’ explanations should not be treated as verified corporate history, and the 2013 paperwork for another lead must not be counted as an Epstein acquisition.

December 2018 to February 2019: viewings and uncertainty about the buyer

EFTA00550789; EFTA00551699; EFTA00550731; EFTA00551696. On 19 December 2018, Lloyd introduced Shuliak and Peto to arrange property viewings, expressly including Bin Ennakhil. Shuliak asked to see it and other large properties. Two days later, Lloyd asked whether any of the properties would suit Jeffrey; Shuliak replied that the properties they had seen appeared to need substantial work.

EFTA02313354; EFTA00551657, pages 1 to 3. Peto’s 23 December follow up listed Bin Ennakhil at an asking price of €55 million, while suggesting an offer around €35 million might be acceptable. He discussed other properties separately. In early January, Shuliak said the maximum would be between €15 million and €20 million, including taxes. Peto answered that this range did not interest the vendor and mentioned another offer around €30 million that had not been agreed. Shuliak then said their interest would expire at the end of January as they moved on to another house. These were negotiating positions and a stated deadline, not sale prices. The February correspondence records a renewed negotiating phase.

EFTA02630642, page 1. A 14 February 2019 chain titled “Leon Black” shows uncertainty on the broker’s side. Peto wrote that “none of us” had spoken to Black and that Black had not seen Bin Ennakhil, and questioned his understanding of the prospective buyer’s identity. Lloyd forwarded the question to Epstein, who urged him to move ahead. This records a question and an instruction. It does not establish that Black authorized a purchase, participated in the negotiations or knew his name was being used.

EFTA00552317, pages 3 and 4. Shuliak also floated an installment structure on 15 February, saying 10 million on day one and 2 million per year for eight years might work because funds would need to be withheld against potential liabilities. She was responding to the euro-priced share proposal, but her installment sentence omits the currency. This was a suggested payment structure, not an agreed schedule. The following day she objected that the supplied contract still referred to August 2017, showing older paperwork resurfacing in the renewed negotiation.

EFTA00552317, pages 1 to 5. The February purchase chain addresses the buyer more explicitly. On 20 February, Shuliak identified The Haze Trust as the prospective purchaser and said an enclosed bank statement should assure the brokers of the buyer’s ability to close. Earlier messages in the chain requested a tax opinion, title protection, information about the seller’s beneficial owner and liabilities, inspections and the opportunity to examine the corporate records. Peto had described a share purchase and quoted €25 million net to the vendor, or €26 million if the vendor paid the agency charge.

EFTA00552453; EFTA02313589. On 17 February, Leon said a different offer had been accepted and signing and payment were planned for early March, but negotiations could continue until a contract was signed. That other prospective buyer is not identified as Epstein. On 22 February, Leon proposed a formal binding offer subject to diligence and a 10 percent escrow deposit. Shuliak responded with questions about tax, title, liabilities and the age of the ownership document. A seller’s request for a binding offer does not make the later nonbinding letters binding, and this chain does not establish a deposit payment.

EFTA00522893; EFTA02313589. One released attachment contains a certified English translation of a Moroccan ownership certificate dated 14 March 2013, translated in October 2013, naming Pamur Anstalt as owner. Building and residential permits follow. It supplies historical documentary context, but does not independently verify the title chain or liabilities at the time of the 2019 negotiations. Shuliak expressly challenged the reliance on a six year old title record.

March 2019: the offers were expressly nonbinding

EFTA00552157, pages 1 and 2. The late-February discussions included another staged-payment suggestion. On 26 February, Shuliak asked whether they could close with “10m” plus the agency fee and defer “15” until the outstanding matters had been checked. Her sentence does not state a currency. Leon replied on 1 March that the vendor had not agreed to the new offer and asked whether she would increase her offer for the property alone. His explanation of restrictions on transferring the proceeds was a participant’s account, not an independently verified legal conclusion.

EFTA00552157, page 1. In an email to Shuliak on 1 March, Epstein asked about a full building and land survey, recent title evidence and itemized closing costs. He also raised a multiyear lease with an option to buy as a possible alternative. The record does not establish that this wording was sent onward to Leon, that the requested checks were completed or that a lease was agreed.

EFTA00552078; EFTA00552022, page 3. An email sent from Epstein’s account to Shuliak on 12 March contains wording addressed to Marc. It names Haze Trust as the buyer and describes the ultimate owner as “me.” It also asks about the correct addressee, due diligence, the separate commission, a purchase agreement and escrow or a letter of credit. A later chain reproduces similar wording under Shuliak’s name. The two records show the wording circulating between the participants; they do not, by themselves, establish who composed it or the trust’s beneficial ownership.

EFTA00523098; EFTA00523097. Two letters dated 14 March set out different proposals. One offered €23 million for all Pamur shares. The other offered €16 million for the shares and €8 million for the Moroccan property. Both explicitly called the offers nonbinding, required satisfactory due diligence and contemplated later definitive agreements. They used the spelling “Kahn Stiftung,” while broker emails used “Khan Stiftung.” The letters named Shuliak as the contact and carried her typed name. They are not executed purchase agreements.

EFTA00806904, page 1. A further letter bearing the same 14 March date gives a different mixed proposal: €15 million for the Pamur shares and €8 million for the property. It is addressed to Leon at Kensington Properties, expressly describes the offers as nonbinding, and carries Shuliak’s typed name. This standalone copy does not establish when or whether that version was sent, its sequence relative to the other letters, or acceptance by the seller. It should be retained as a document variant rather than counted as another completed transaction.

EFTA00552030, pages 4 and 5. Before those letters, Leon had outlined two different paths on 10 March. A direct property purchase was proposed at €29 million, split between €28 million to notary escrow and €1 million for transaction expenses, with a separate €1 million agency fee. A €25 million share purchase remained another option. These were alternative arrangements within the ongoing negotiation, not payments that can be added together.

EFTA00552022, pages 2 to 4. The March negotiation chain also shows why a single figure cannot describe the entire deal. Shuliak proposed €19 million for the shares plus €1 million for Kensington and warned about the transaction’s risks. Leon replied that €19 million was not accepted and that he would try to obtain agreement at €23 million. The warning about excessive risks in this exchange belongs to Shuliak, not to the broker.

EFTA00552010, page 1. On 15 March, Leon acknowledged the two written offers and said the €16 million plus €8 million arrangement could not be accepted. He described €18 million plus €8 million as the minimum for that mixed structure. This counterpart response helps distinguish the rejected combination from the separate €23 million share offer discussed next.

EFTA00552774, pages 1 and 2. On 19 March, Leon reported that the owner had accepted Haze Trust’s €23 million offer, conditional on closing by 29 March. Shuliak continued to request the foundation documents, the explanation for transfer of Pamur shares from the BVI company, and contracts. Her 21 March email said the offer should expire if contracts were not received by 25 March. This sequence documents the broker’s report of conditional acceptance amid unfinished contractual and diligence work.

EFTA00552724, pages 1 and 2. On 26 March, Shuliak told Mark Lloyd that she had given up on the negotiations and would make an offer on another house. In the quoted exchange she complained that, despite supplying requested documents, offers and bank statements, nothing had been delivered in return. On 27 March, she wrote that she thought Leon was using her bid to seek a higher price from someone else. A quoted message from Lloyd described her concern as involving the owner and said he had assured her this was not the case. Shuliak forwarded the chain to Jeffrey that day. These are the participants’ statements and suspicions during negotiations; the exchange does not establish that Leon or the owner manipulated bids.

EFTA00552869. By 29 March, the parties were again at an impasse. Lloyd relayed a request for bank confirmation of the source of funds. Shuliak said a €15 million proposal had been rejected and complained that requested documentation and advice had not been provided. The record then moves into another restructuring proposal in April.

EFTA02313721; EFTA00552960. A 27 March message from Lloyd relayed Peto’s view that Shuliak’s offer remained the most serious and advised against increasing it. On 1 April, Leon wrote as if the process had stalled, describing about six weeks of discussions and explaining the seller’s position. He also referred to two earlier sales failing over banking compliance. The buyers in those earlier sales are unidentified; those claims cannot be counted as two more Epstein attempts. Leon also denied playing one prospective buyer against another. That was his own denial, distinct from Lloyd’s earlier assurance; it does not independently resolve Shuliak’s earlier suspicion.

EFTA00552824, page 1; EFTA02313921, page 1. Epstein’s 1 April email to Shuliak outlined a response to Leon. It distinguished shareholders from directors, said that paperwork for the reported BVI-to-foundation share transfer had not been shown, and proposed buying the property while lending the owner the balance on the first day, repayable over four years. A separately released email shows Shuliak sending substantially the same response to Leon that day, copying Lloyd and Peto. These records establish both stages of the correspondence; they give no loan amount and do not show that the proposal was agreed or funded.

April 2019: a proposed share sale and property transfer

EFTA00553395. On 2 April, Leon proposed that Pamur sell the Moroccan property to Haze Trust for €8 million while Haze Trust separately bought Pamur for €21 million. His message included valuations in Moroccan dirhams, estimated taxes and registration fees, and a proposal for Pamur, once owned by Haze Trust, to recover the sale price less taxes in four annual installments. He asked for the proposal to be checked by Moroccan advisers. These calculations were his proposed structure and estimates, not established tax assessments.

EFTA00553544, pages 1 to 3. The follow up chain preserves both objections and revisions. Shuliak rejected the idea that she should avoid tax and questioned the cash required. Leon explained his proposed cash movements. On 3 April, Shuliak said the survey was not scheduled and that she would take no further step without a contract signed by the vendor, which she requested by the following Monday. On 4 April, he said the vendor had agreed to a revised strategy involving €20 million for Pamur shares and €10 million for the property. He still requested banking compliance information and said a modified contract would follow. Those figures describe proposed transaction legs with related cash movements; adding them and labeling the result a completed palace purchase would misstate the record.

BBC Eye Investigations. Kensington disputed the suggestion of an unlawful or unethical tax arrangement in its response to the BBC. Leon said no tax rules had been violated and explained that Epstein wanted Moroccan registration in his own name. That response belongs alongside the description of the proposal. Nothing in the records cited here amounts to a judicial determination of its legality.

EFTA00553562. The exchange still lacked a completed agreement. On 5 April, Leon said he could not yet send a signed contract and proposed resolving bank to bank compliance before connecting the companies’ representatives. Epstein’s response asked why a contract was still missing.

EFTA02316321; EFTA02314180. On 8 April, Epstein questioned a draft that still contained a 29 March closing date. He said property diligence and evidence of the transfer from the BVI company to the foundation remained missing, and referred to a planned survey. Later that month he again disputed the property’s value. These messages do not demonstrate completion of the April proposal.

EFTA00553734, pages 2 to 4; EFTA00553704, pages 1 and 2. The next exchanges show continuing efforts to meet the bank’s requirements. On 9 April, Shuliak sent a requested letter and proposed a 1 June closing, with the owner’s belongings removed fifteen days beforehand. Peto requested direct transmission of the bank letter from Stewart Oldfield to Mike Lukic. Lloyd suggested scanning it to Lukic; a separate Peto message reported that he had heard Lukic had received Oldfield’s letter. The correspondence does not show that Lloyd’s proposed workaround was used, that bank approval was complete or that the suggested closing date was accepted.

EFTA00553697, page 1; EFTA00553734, pages 1 and 2. Epstein’s 9 April email to Shuliak complained of further demands and said he had been advised to discontinue. Although its body addressed “alex,” the header names Shuliak as its recipient; it does not show that Peto received that message or that talks ended. Shuliak continued seeking diligence material on 10 April. On 11 April, Leon described a survey visit as arranged for the following Thursday; Shuliak said the architect was from Alberto Pinto’s office and that the surveyor was preparing a list. She again requested an explanation of the BVI-to-foundation share transfer and disclosure of the ultimate beneficiary. These messages document preparations and unresolved questions, not a completed survey or conveyance.

EFTA02314257, pages 1 and 2. Beneficiary disclosure remained disputed on 11 and 12 April. A bank message forwarded by Leon requested the account holder’s name and confirmation of at least €30 million in freely available funds. Shuliak asked for the seller-side ultimate beneficiary’s name first, saying she should not deal with a sanctioned person. Leon told Lloyd that he could not show her message to the vendor. Lloyd argued that the parties should not press for ultimate-owner disclosure. That was his assertion about the requirements, not a legal determination; the bank’s stated due-diligence request is preserved in the same chain.

EFTA00553761, page 1. In another 12 April message, Lloyd told Epstein that Leon had said he was 99.9% certain Epstein was the buyer behind Shuliak, which Lloyd said he had neither confirmed nor denied. Lloyd also reported Leon’s statement that the seller no longer minded who the buyer was. Lloyd suggested that Deutsche Bank and LGT could exchange the trusts’ ultimate beneficiaries’ names without passing them to their clients, or that Epstein could call Leon directly. These were Lloyd’s reports and suggestions; the record does not establish that the banks adopted that arrangement or that a sale followed.

May 2019: a $10 million share proposal

EFTA00554833, page 1. On 13 May, Shuliak told Marc that she had been told Jeffrey had moved on after doing his due diligence. In the same message, she wrote in the first person that she would be willing to buy the shares of the Liechtenstein company for $10 million, expressly dollars rather than euros. Her statement about Epstein is secondhand, and the message does not identify the intended ultimate owner or explain whether she was proposing to act for herself or someone else.

EFTA00554833, page 1. The reply from “Marc.Kensington,” signed Marc, said he would buy immediately at that price without due diligence. This is the correspondent’s response to the proposed price, not the seller’s acceptance, an executed agreement or evidence of a completed purchase. The May exchange should remain distinct from the renewed June contract instructions described below.

June 2019: €18 million and a new proposed buyer vehicle

EFTA02316098, pages 1 and 2. A 13 June chain titled “Bin” records renewed discussions before the 17 June instructions. Leon suggested there might be a chance of a deal at “17 + 2” with immediate payment, and Epstein forwarded the exchange to Shuliak. The record does not specify the currency, scale or allocation of those figures, so they should not be converted into a definite total price or agency fee. In an earlier part of the chain, Leon asked several questions about payment, due diligence and a possible buyer; Epstein’s one-word “Yes” does not establish a distinct answer to each question or an authorized buyer. The exchange contains no seller acceptance.

EFTA02316264, page 1. The 17 June chain shows a changed approach. Leon said his bank needed a contract between the final buyer and him and offered to become a temporary Pamur shareholder as part of a transaction involving Khan Stiftung. Epstein instructed Darren to prepare a contract for FT Real Estate or another entity to buy the Pamur shares from Leon or his entity. He initially described a $20 million price; Leon corrected the amount to €18 million and asked for payment in euros.

EFTA00555532, page 1. A longer version of the same 17 June chain records Epstein asking whether Leon would buy in his personal name for FT Real Estate, which Epstein called his entity. Leon answered that he would buy in his personal name. He said that once funds arrived in Basel, he would travel to Liechtenstein and collect the shares against a SWIFT transfer, with Pamur’s directors and owner then to be changed. These were proposed transaction steps, not evidence that they occurred.

EFTA02316264, page 1. The fully headed instruction in this chain is evidence of a proposed intermediary structure and contract instructions. It does not establish that Leon acquired the shares, that FT Real Estate signed a final contract or that ownership transferred. The June instructions should also be kept distinct from the earlier Haze Trust offers.

June and July 2019: the requested wires and their cancellation

EFTA01265962, pages 1 and 5. On 26 June, Richard Kahn sent Schwab an instruction to convert dollars to euros and confirm an attached foreign wire request for €11.15 million. The form identified Marc Leon as the destination account holder at Julius Baer. A wire instruction is evidence of a payment request, not a title transfer.

EFTA01265973, pages 2 and 3. Schwab’s internal compliance record describes a $12,708,324 payment for real estate and Kahn’s request to stop it the next day because the agreed terms had changed. It records a successful recall and a $113,527.80 foreign exchange loss. The same record states that a second request for $14.95 million was submitted on 4 July and that the form was signed on 5 July. It describes both as wire attempts.

EFTA01265969, pages 1, 3 and 4; Justice Department announcement. The surviving second form independently confirms the 5 July date beneath the names and signatures of Kahn and Epstein. Its amount field reads $14,950,000. It appears with Kahn’s email of 9 July asking Schwab to “please cancel this wire.” Epstein had been arrested on Saturday, 6 July; the Justice Department announced the charges on Monday, 8 July.

EFTA00151545, pages 1, 7 to 9. Schwab filed its suspicious activity report on 13 July. The report totals the two payment attempts at $27,658,324. That equals $12,708,324 plus $14,950,000; it is not a separate palace valuation. Its narrative says the first wire was returned on 10 July and the second was canceled. It also contains inconsistent language about whether the second wire had already been sent, despite insufficient funds and later confirmation that it should not be processed. Without a receiving bank confirmation, this record does not establish that the second payment settled.

EFTA00151545, pages 6 and 9; EFTA01265973, page 3. The report was a notification of concerns surrounding attempted real estate payments and Epstein’s potential flight risk before a bail hearing. A suspicious activity report is not a finding of criminal conduct. The internal compliance note also said that the source of funds did not appear to be of concern. That qualification should be retained when describing the bank’s actions.

EFTA01656415, page 9; EFTA01656452, pages 6 to 9; EFTA01265962; EFTA01265969. A continuing Schwab report filed on 11 October 2019 later described the original Leon wires as canceled or reversed. It is corroboration of their outcome, not an additional palace payment. That later narrative calls the source Southern Financial LLC, while the initial report and actual wire forms identify Southern Trust Company, Inc. The conflicting label should not be used to create a third transaction or silently merge the entities.

What happened to the purchase, and what remains unproven

Reuters investigation by Naomi Rovnick, Brad Heath and Nivedita Balu. The evidence supports an attempted acquisition that did not close. Reuters reported Leon’s confirmation that the contemplated transaction never took place and that the palace was later sold to someone else. Schwab told Reuters that it investigated the accounts, decided to end the relationship and referred the matter to federal law enforcement. Julius Baer declined comment, and Reuters could not establish whether it accepted the transfers.

BBC Eye Investigations. The BBC examined speculation that Morocco could have provided Epstein with a refuge. Its report says the released files contained no reference to him discussing the country in that way. The palace correspondence cited here likewise establishes a property negotiation, not that motive.

The chronology supports repeated approaches, including a concrete 2015 proposal, a 2017 draft agreement, a January 2019 price impasse, March nonbinding offers and conditional acceptance, April restructuring and June contract instructions. These are negotiating phases, not a claim that each message created a separate legally binding transaction. No new Epstein bid has been established for every intervening year. Several limits remain. The reviewed set does not include a completed conveyance, a final executed June purchase agreement, a full receiving bank settlement record or an independently verified chain of property title. It also does not establish wrongdoing by the brokers, seller, bankers or other correspondents. Statements about price, corporate ownership and tax treatment remain attributed to the documents that make them.

Reconciling Epstein Data Wiki with the primary files

Epstein Data Wiki index; Southern Trust Company; Richard Kahn. The current Epstein Data Wiki index and its Haze Trust, Southern Trust Company, Karyna Shuliak and Richard Kahn pages were checked for this account. No dedicated Bin Ennakhil page appeared in the index inspected. The Southern Trust page points to the July report and the Kahn page to its October continuation. Those are useful archival leads, but the records require reconciliation: the July report’s arrest date is incorrect, and the October report uses a conflicting source-entity name. The official arrest announcement and actual wire forms provide the more specific evidence.

EFTA01656452; EFTA00151545; EFTA02312902; EFTA00552317; Epstein Data shell entity report. EFTA01656452 is another released copy of the same July report preserved as EFTA00151545. It is not another payment. A separate AI-generated report on the platform places a Haze Trust acquisition reference in March, although its cited email, EFTA02312902, is dated 20 February and speaks of a prospective buyer. The related palace email chain establishes the property context. Neither the summary nor the email establishes an acquisition.

Evidence appearances and document IDs

• EFTA01757053: 1 September 2013 palace film invitation forwarded to Epstein.
• EFTA00657164: May to September 2012 loan correspondence and Kahn’s immediate response to Lloyd’s reported $165,000 repayment; five pages.
• EFTA01891147: 19 September 2012 message from Lloyd reporting the wire, with earlier loan correspondence; overlapping six-page release.
• EFTA01205487: Unsigned $160,000 promissory-note document dated 22 April 2015, with a 21 July 2015 maturity; five pages.
• EFTA01205484: Unsigned three-page Affidavit of Consent Judgment referring to the 22 April 2015 Lloyd note, with blank civil case number, signature, date and notarial fields.
• EFTA00842825: 22 October 2015 email from Epstein to Lloyd offering help and requesting payments before year-end financials; no currency stated; two pages.
• EFTA01017536: 5 November 2018 Lloyd reply acknowledging an unspecified loan and hoping for a commission on an introduction; two pages.
• EFTA00861995: March 2015 direct visit and telephone scheduling, including Epstein’s statement that Lloyd represented his interest; three pages.
• EFTA02665496: 15 December 2016 advice from Lloyd to meet Kiss one to one; one page.
• EFTA01050706: 4 April 2017 one-to-one meeting recommendation and Epstein’s stated intention to complain to Christie’s; two pages.
• EFTA02314257: 11 to 12 April 2019 bank due-diligence and beneficiary-disclosure exchange; three pages.
• EFTA00553761: 12 April 2019 Lloyd report of Leon’s buyer-identity view and proposed bank-to-bank beneficiary disclosure; two pages.
• EFTA00969430: 1 to 2 September 2013 named property information.
• EFTA00968926: 2 September 2013 technical and staffing questions.
• EFTA02495986: 15 July 2015 price proposal with five-year resale condition; currency contextual.
• EFTA02489308: 22 to 23 August 2015 valuation exchange and broker’s €40 million suggestion.
• EFTA01781836: Lloyd reply quoting Epstein’s 25 April 2016 message; reply header partly obscured, not a 2010 record.
• EFTA01190251: June to July 2016 status inquiry and anticipated sale to an unidentified buyer.
• EFTA00585171: Unsigned August 2017 €25 million draft share-transfer agreement.
• EFTA02313589: February 2019 requested deposit procedure and diligence objections.
• EFTA00522893: Historical ownership certificate translation and building/residential permits.
• EFTA00552030: March 2019 direct-property versus share-purchase alternatives.
• EFTA00552010: 15 March rejection of the €16 million plus €8 million proposal.
• EFTA00552960: 1 April 2019 seller-side explanation of stalled discussions.
• EFTA00552157: 22 February to 1 March 2019 chain, including the staged-payment suggestion, reported rejection and survey/lease questions; five pages.
• EFTA00552824: 1 April 2019 email from Epstein to Shuliak, including a property-purchase and loan idea, above Leon’s seller-side explanation; two pages.
• EFTA02316098: 13 June 2019 renewed discussion with unexplained “17 + 2” price shorthand and immediate-payment suggestion; two pages.
• EFTA02313921: Shuliak’s 1 April 2019 reply to Leon, copying Lloyd and Peto, transmitting substantially the same property-purchase and loan wording as Epstein’s email to her; three pages.
• EFTA00806904: 14 March 2019 nonbinding letter variant offering €15 million for Pamur shares and €8 million for the property; one page.
• EFTA00553734: 8–11 April 2019 chain covering a proposed 1 June closing, bank-letter follow-up, survey arrangements and unresolved corporate diligence; five pages.
• EFTA00553704: 9 April 2019 forward preserving Peto’s direct bank-letter transmission request and Lloyd’s proposed scan; four pages.
• EFTA00553697: 9 April 2019 email from Epstein to Shuliak objecting to further demands, above the bank-letter exchange; four pages.
• EFTA00553562: 5 to 6 April 2019 unfinished-contract and compliance exchange.
• EFTA01656452: Another copy of the same initial July suspicious activity report.
• EFTA01656415: October continuing report confirming canceled/reversed wires; source-entity label conflicts.
• EFTA00862951: February to March 2015 property descriptions and proposed visit.
• EFTA00851887: 9 July 2015 ownership structure represented by Marc Leon.
• EFTA00846907: 7 September 2015 rental with purchase option proposal.
• EFTA00634448: 4 April 2017 reported condition on further inspections.
• EFTA01036804: 22 August 2017 forwarded acquisition review; three page file.
• EFTA02638849: 24 August 2017 broker explanation of entity changes.
• EFTA00550789: 19 December 2018 viewing introduction.
• EFTA02313354: 23 December 2018 price discussion.
• EFTA02630642: 14 February 2019 chain raising uncertainty about Leon Black.
• EFTA00552317: February 2019 diligence requests and Haze Trust identification.
• EFTA00552078: 12 March 2019 email from Epstein’s account containing wording about Haze Trust and ultimate ownership.
• EFTA00523097: 14 March 2019 nonbinding combined proposal: €16 million shares plus €8 million property.
• EFTA00523098: 14 March 2019 €23 million nonbinding share offer.
• EFTA00552774: March 2019 conditional price acceptance and further document requests.
• EFTA00552724 (PDF mirror): 27 March 2019 forward preserving the 26–27 March negotiation exchange; two pages, Bates EFTA00552724 to EFTA00552725.
• EFTA00553395: 2 April 2019 proposed tax and transaction structure.
• EFTA00553544: 4 April 2019 revised structure and preceding correspondence.
• EFTA02316321: 8 April 2019 unresolved contract and diligence questions.
• EFTA00554833 (PDF mirror): 13 May 2019 share proposal for $10 million and Marc’s reply; one page.
• EFTA02316264: 17 June 2019 FT Real Estate proposal and €18 million clarification.
• EFTA00555532: longer 17 June 2019 chain, including Leon’s proposed purchase in his personal name and planned share-transfer mechanics; three pages.
• EFTA01265962: 26 June 2019 wire instruction and attached form.
• EFTA01265969: 9 July 2019 cancellation email, with the form dated 5 July; signature sheet is Bates EFTA01265972.
• EFTA01265973: Schwab internal compliance notes; discussion of requests, signatures and recall.
• EFTA00151545: Schwab suspicious activity report filed 13 July; transaction narrative at Bates EFTA00151551 to EFTA00151553.

Reporting and source references

The BBC and Reuters reports are original journalism and include responses obtained from parties to the negotiations. The linked released documents supply the contemporaneous record. Epstein Data Wiki’s Southern Trust Company reference page provides additional archival context, but the bank records themselves control the chronology here.

1. Emir Nader and Samuel Owers, BBC Eye Investigations, “Epstein tried to buy a palace in Morocco days before his arrest in 2019,” 27 February 2026.
2. Naomi Rovnick, Brad Heath and Nivedita Balu, Reuters, “A palace in Marrakesh: How Schwab moved $27.7 million in payments for Epstein days before his arrest,” updated 20 February 2026; syndicated by MarketScreener.
3. U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of New York, 8 July 2019 announcement of Epstein’s arrest and federal charges.
4. Epstein Data Wiki, Southern Trust Company, Inc.; reference context.
5. Epstein Data Wiki, The Haze Trust; reference context.

Primary document links above point to the DOJ release or copies preserved by Epstein Data and Roll Call. Continuation Bates stamps refer to pages inside their parent records. The identifiers and page references allow copies of the DOJ release to be compared. Personal contact details, account numbers and redacted identities are not reproduced here.