EFTA00037187: FBI Emails About Paul Morris, a Planned Proffer and Deutsche Bank’s Epstein Relationship
Snapshot
- Primary evidence: EFTA00037187, a two page internal email chain.
- Page identifiers: EFTA00037187 and EFTA00037188.
- Email subject: “Epstein case.”
- Dates covered: March 26, 2020, and August 4, 2020.
- Main person discussed: Paul Morris, identified as Epstein’s relationship manager.
- Institutions discussed: Deutsche Bank and the FBI.
- Other subjects: Payments to women, transaction monitoring, a proposed interview with an unnamed Epstein attorney and possible questions for Ghislaine Maxwell.
- Principal finding: An August 4 email says investigators engaged Morris the previous day, that he retained counsel and that they expected to conduct a proffer.
- Important limitation: The document does not establish that the proposed proffer occurred.
- Document type: Investigative correspondence, rather than an FBI interview report or transcript.
- Redactions: Most correspondent names and contact details are withheld.
Overview
EFTA00037187 records investigators discussing Deutsche Bank’s handling of Epstein’s accounts and their interest in questioning Paul Morris.
The chain begins with March 2020 messages asking whether the team handling the Epstein case had contacted Morris or other bank personnel.
An August update reports that investigators had engaged Morris and that he retained an attorney. The writer anticipated a proffer and invited colleagues to suggest questions.
The same update describes plans to seek an interview with an unnamed Epstein attorney involved in transactions. It also proposes questions for Maxwell if she became cooperative.
The document provides a concrete lead for tracing interviews and financial investigative work. It does not contain Morris’s answers or the outcome of the proposed meetings.
Key Takeaways
- Investigators explicitly described an investigation into Deutsche Bank that included transaction monitoring and its relationship with Epstein.
- They questioned the bank’s justification for payments to women based on a belief that the recipients were adults.
- The correspondence identifies possible trafficking and witness tampering concerns.
- Investigators specifically wanted to know whether Morris had been contacted.
- The August 4 update places the reported engagement with Morris on August 3, 2020.
- Morris had retained counsel by the update.
- Investigators anticipated a proffer and were collecting questions.
- The writer disputed an attorney’s reported description of Morris as a minor relationship manager.
- A proposed interview with Epstein’s attorney remained prospective, and the attorney was not named.
- The Maxwell proposal was conditional. It does not establish that she answered banking questions.
- The correspondence does not identify the banker whose unreleased interview Senator Ron Wyden described in September 2026.
The March 2020 Inquiry
Page 2 contains the earliest message in the released chain.
On March 26, 2020, at a displayed time of 10:07 a.m., an investigator asked whether the Epstein case belonged to the recipient’s squad.
The writer explained that they were investigating Deutsche Bank. One aspect concerned transaction monitoring, including the bank’s handling of Epstein.
The investigator wanted:
- The identity of the Epstein case agent.
- Information about whether investigators had spoken with Morris.
A 12:10 p.m. response confirmed that the recipient’s squad handled the Epstein case. The writer copied the case agents and invited direct contact.
These messages show coordination between personnel discussing the bank investigation and the team handling the Epstein case.
They do not provide a complete organizational chart or identify every investigation involved.
Why Investigators Were Examining Deutsche Bank
Page 2 records a more detailed message sent at a displayed time of 2:40 p.m.
The writer said investigators were examining Deutsche Bank for several reasons.
One concern was that the bank should not have allowed Epstein to bank there because he was moving money to pay women.
The writer characterized the bank’s explanation as acknowledging the payments while maintaining that the women were not believed to be underage.
The investigator criticized that reasoning, specifically referencing trafficking and witness tampering.
This passage matters because it shows investigative concern extending beyond the recipients’ apparent ages.
However, the email does not attach the bank statements, interview passages or correspondence supporting the writer’s characterization of the bank’s position.
It is an investigator’s assessment recorded in an internal message, rather than a judicial finding or a complete statement from Deutsche Bank.
The Response About Earlier Bank Contact
Page 1 records a March 26 response at a displayed time of 3 p.m.
The writer said their team had not personally engaged with the bank.
They added that their financial accountant and Assistant United States Attorneys might have done so. They promised to check.
This was an uncertain statement about possible contact by other personnel.
It should not be treated as establishing that nobody at the FBI or Justice Department had previously contacted Deutsche Bank.
A subsequent 4:30 p.m. message thanked the recipient and indicated that the requested follow up was not immediately pressing.
The released chain does not include a March answer confirming whom the accountant or prosecutors had contacted.
The August Update About Paul Morris
Page 1 contains the August 4, 2020 update.
The email header records 18:29:32 UTC.
The writer states:
“FYI, we engaged Morris yesterday, and he retained counsel.”
The reference to “yesterday” places the reported engagement on August 3, 2020.
The wording establishes that the investigator reported contact or engagement with Morris. It does not describe the method, duration or substance of that contact.
The document does not establish that August 3 was the first occasion on which any federal investigator contacted him.
The Planned Proffer
Page 1 states that investigators would likely conduct a proffer of Morris in the near future.
The writer invited colleagues to submit questions they wanted posed to him.
That invitation shows preparation for a prospective session in which investigators expected to obtain information.
The document does not include:
- A scheduled meeting date.
- A proffer agreement.
- The terms of any agreement.
- A participant list.
- Interview notes.
- An FD 302.
- A transcript or recording.
- Confirmation that Morris attended.
- An account of what he said.
Retaining counsel and discussing a proffer do not establish an admission, cooperation agreement or grant of immunity.
The central distinction: This is evidence of a proposed proffer, not evidence of its completion.
The Dispute Over Morris’s Role
Page 1 records the investigator’s description of communications with Morris’s attorney.
According to the writer, counsel portrayed Morris as a low level relationship manager among many others.
The investigator considered that description an attempt to minimize his role.
The writer also made a skeptical comment about Morris appearing to have done well financially.
That comment is an opinion in the email. The document provides no compensation records or calculation of Morris’s earnings.
The attorney’s position is also reported secondhand. The chain does not include counsel’s original message, identify the attorney or supply a complete account of the exchange.
EpsteinWiki’s Paul Morris profile provides broader background on his banking responsibilities.
The Proposed Interview With Epstein’s Attorney
Page 1 describes a separate proposed interview with Epstein’s attorney.
The writer said legal personnel first needed to address unspecified procedural matters.
The attorney was described as responsible for numerous transactions and as appearing to have attempted to structure transactions to avoid suspicious activity reporting.
Several limitations are important:
- The attorney is not named.
- The underlying transactions are not identified.
- The procedural obstacles are not explained.
- The interview is described as a likely future step.
- No completed interview or outcome is included.
The email specifically refers to SARs. It does not identify particular currency transaction reports, and the wording should not be silently replaced with a different reporting category.
The allegation about transaction structuring remains the investigator’s assessment in this correspondence.
Does the Attorney Reference Mean Darren Indyke?
Quigley’s separate interview, EFTA00128968, identifies Darren Indyke as Epstein’s attorney and recalls an internal reporting form concerning recurring cash withdrawals.
Kirby’s interview, EFTA00128765, identifies Indyke as holding power of attorney and discusses obtaining transaction information from Epstein’s representatives.
Those records make Indyke relevant to research about Epstein’s transactional activity.
However, EFTA00037187 does not name him.
It therefore cannot establish that he was the attorney investigators intended to interview.
A named follow up email, meeting record or interview report would be needed to resolve that identification.
The Conditional Maxwell Proposal
Page 1 also discusses Ghislaine Maxwell.
The investigator wanted colleagues to ask questions about her understanding of Epstein’s relationship with Deutsche Bank if she became more cooperative.
The proposal was expressly conditional.
It does not establish that:
- Maxwell agreed to cooperate at that time.
- Investigators submitted the questions.
- She answered questions about Deutsche Bank.
- She provided information about Morris.
- A banking related interview report resulted.
The passage shows investigators considering another possible source of information about the financial relationship.
Timeline of the Correspondence
| Date and displayed time | Development | Evidentiary limit |
|---|---|---|
| March 26, 2020, 10:07 a.m. | Investigator asks which squad handles Epstein and whether Morris was contacted | No interview confirmation |
| March 26, 2020, 12:10 p.m. | Recipient identifies the Epstein squad and copies case agents | Coordination, rather than substantive evidence |
| March 26, 2020, 2:40 p.m. | Investigator explains bank concerns involving payments to women | Assessment without attached supporting records |
| March 26, 2020, 3 p.m. | Respondent says their team did not personally engage the bank and will check other contacts | Earlier contact remains uncertain |
| March 26, 2020, 4:30 p.m. | Follow up request is acknowledged | No substantive answer included |
| August 3, 2020 | Date implied for engagement with Morris | Derived from the next day’s “yesterday” reference |
| August 4, 2020, 18:29:32 UTC | Investigator reports counsel retention and anticipates a proffer | Completion remains unconfirmed |
The March messages do not display an explicit timezone in their quoted headers. Their displayed times should not automatically be treated as UTC.
How This Relates to Wyden’s Missing Interview
Wyden’s September 30, 2026 letter states that his investigators learned of an unreleased FD 302 documenting an interview with a banker tied to Epstein. finance.senate.gov The letter does not name that banker or identify an interview date.
EFTA00037187 supplies a concrete research lead involving a proposed Morris proffer.
However, it does not establish that Morris was interviewed or that any resulting report is the document Wyden described.
The records support three separate statements:
- Wyden described an existing but unreleased interview report.
- The 2020 email anticipated a future Morris proffer.
- The connection between those records is unproven.
The email warrants further investigation. It does not resolve the missing banker’s identity.
Related Witness Accounts and Sleuth Research
Kirby’s interview places her on Morris’s team and describes Epstein’s onboarding, criminal history research and wire processing.
Hill McFadden’s interview describes concerns about payments to young women, internal reporting and alleged retaliation.
Quigley’s interview discusses monitoring procedures, payments to women and an internal report concerning Indyke.
These are released accounts from banking employees. Their existence does not confirm completion of the proposed Morris proffer.
The Butterfly Bureau’s analysis of Wyden’s banking report examines the financial infrastructure surrounding Epstein and includes Morris among the bankers discussed. butterflybureau.substack.com It provides broader context, rather than proof of the missing interview’s identity.
EpsteinWiki’s Deutsche Bank article provides additional institutional background.
Evidence Appearances
- EFTA00037187, page 1: August update, reported engagement with Morris, counsel retention, proposed proffer, attorney characterization, prospective lawyer interview and conditional Maxwell questions.
- EFTA00037188, page 2: March inquiry, transaction monitoring investigation, concern about payments to women and requests concerning Morris.
- EFTA00128765: Amanda Kirby’s separate banking interview.
- EFTA00128968: Cherie Quigley’s separate compliance interview.
- EFTA00128987: Tammy Hill McFadden’s separate compliance interview.
The two pages of EFTA00037187 should be read together. The newest email appears first, while the earliest messages appear later in the chain.
Questions for Further Investigation
- What did the August 3 engagement with Morris involve?
- Who represented Morris?
- Was the proposed proffer scheduled and completed?
- Was an FD 302 or another record created?
- Which questions did colleagues submit?
- What information did Morris provide about onboarding, payments and escalation?
- Which attorney did investigators intend to interview?
- What transactions supported the investigator’s structuring concern?
- What procedural matters delayed that proposed interview?
- Were banking questions submitted to Maxwell?
- What earlier contact did the financial accountant or prosecutors have with Deutsche Bank?
- Does a later record connect the Morris proposal to the unreleased report Wyden identified?
Sources
- FBI email chain, EFTA00037187. March 26 and August 4, 2020. Primary source for this article.
- Amanda Kirby interview, EFTA00128765. August 10, 2021. Related operational banking account.
- Cherie Quigley interview, EFTA00128968. October 10, 2019. Related compliance account.
- Tammy Hill McFadden interview, EFTA00128987. July 12, 2019. Related compliance account.
- Wyden’s letter requesting unreleased FBI interview reports. September 30, 2026.
- The Butterfly Bureau’s banking investigation analysis. Related independent analysis of Wyden’s financial investigation.
- EpsteinWiki: Paul Morris. Internal banker profile.
- EpsteinWiki: Amanda Kirby. Internal banking witness profile.
- EpsteinWiki: Deutsche Bank. Internal institutional background.