EFTA01681865: Deutsche Bank’s Presentation on Jeffrey Epstein’s Financial Network
Snapshot
Document: EFTA01681865
Date: September 12, 2019
Author: Deutsche Bank
Recipient: Office of the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York
Length: 52 pages
Subject: Jeffrey Epstein’s Deutsche Bank accounts, trusts, companies, payments, investments, cash withdrawals, legal expenses, tuition payments, and financial connections
Evidence type: Bank presentation based on account records, customer information, trust documents, transaction records, and internal research
Key takeaway: Deutsche Bank identified an extensive financial structure surrounding Jeffrey Epstein. The presentation organizes 76 relationship accounts and examines payments to beneficiaries, alleged co conspirators, lawyers, educational institutions, investment funds, employees, associates, and other financial institutions.
What Is EFTA01681865?
EFTA01681865 is a Deutsche Bank presentation prepared for the Office of the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York.
Deutsche Bank dated the presentation September 12, 2019. That was approximately two months after Epstein’s July 2019 arrest and about one month after his death.
Every page carries a confidentiality marking referring to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e). That rule concerns grand jury secrecy. The marking establishes how the document was handled at the time. It does not, by itself, explain how prosecutors used the presentation.
The document contains 19 exhibits. Together, they provide a structured view of Epstein’s Deutsche Bank relationship and the movement of money through accounts connected to him.
Researchers can examine the complete presentation through the Epstein Data evidence record.
What the Presentation Does and Does Not Prove
The presentation is important evidence because it was created by Deutsche Bank from records available to the bank. However, it is not a criminal judgment.
Several exhibit titles use qualifying terms such as “suspected,” “potential,” “alleged,” “ostensible,” and “potentially notable.” Those words matter.
A transfer proves that money moved between identified accounts. It does not automatically prove the purpose of the payment. Likewise, a person’s presence in the document does not establish participation in Epstein’s crimes.
The presentation sometimes relies on payment instructions, customer explanations, trust records, public searches, or Deutsche Bank’s own analysis. Each claim should therefore be evaluated according to the evidence supporting it.
The 76 Account Relationship
The first exhibit identifies 76 accounts within what Deutsche Bank called the Southern Financial relationship.
The bank classified 71 as intentional accounts and 42 as capitalized accounts. It identified 56 as Epstein controlled and 36 as both Epstein controlled and capitalized.
The account types included checking accounts, money market accounts, brokerage advisory accounts, custody accounts, and interest bearing transaction accounts.
Deutsche Bank excluded certain administrative accounts from the main count. The bank explained that these internal accounts were not accounts that Epstein or the related parties would necessarily have known about.
This broader count should not be confused with the number of accounts held personally in Epstein’s name. Many accounts belonged to companies, trusts, charities, property entities, employees, or affiliated organizations.
The presentation provides an important foundation for researchers using the EpsteinWiki network mapping guide. It shows why searches limited to Epstein’s personal name can miss substantial financial activity.
Companies, Trusts, Charities, and Property Accounts
The presentation identifies accounts connected to aircraft ownership, property management, investments, charities, employees, professional services, and personal spending.
Aircraft related entities included Hyperion Air, JEGE, and Plan D. Property related entities included LSJE, Neptune, NES, Zorro Management, and Zorro Development.
Investment and holding structures included Southern Financial, Southern Trust Company, Haze Trust, the 2017 Caterpillar Trust, Mort, and Jeepers.
Charitable accounts included the J. Epstein Virgin Islands Foundation and Gratitude America.
The presentation also includes accounts connected to Darren Indyke PLLC, HBRK Associates, New York Strategy Group, JSC Interiors, Jennifer Kahn, and Karyna Shuliak.
These descriptions often reflect the purposes supplied during the bank’s customer review process. A stated account purpose is not independent proof that every transaction matched that purpose.
The Butterfly Trust
The Butterfly Trust receives extensive attention in the presentation.
According to the bank’s Butterfly Trust timeline, the trust was created in December 2006. Deutsche Bank opened checking and money market accounts for it in January 2014.
The presentation tracks changes to the trust’s beneficiaries, customer information reviews, attempted account openings, and the eventual transfer or closure of its accounts.
The bank also prepared biographical profiles of female beneficiaries. Those profiles drew from customer records, trust documents, and public internet searches.
Researchers should avoid republishing private addresses, identification details, or information that could expose survivors. The evidentiary value lies in the trust structure and transaction history, not in spreading personal information.
Payments Through the Butterfly Trust
Exhibits G and H summarize payments to Butterfly Trust beneficiaries.
The tables include direct payments, indirect payments, transfer dates, amounts, sending accounts, receiving banks, and stated explanations when one was available.
The stated purposes included tuition, loans, reimbursements, travel, rent, immigration services, and other expenses. Some transactions did not have a recorded explanation.
The presentation shows that the trust functioned as more than a passive legal document. It had active bank accounts and was used to distribute money to multiple beneficiaries.
However, the presence of a payment does not establish that the recipient committed a crime. It also does not establish that the bank’s recorded explanation was complete or accurate.
Payments to People Classified as Foreign Models
Exhibit I is titled “Summary of Payments to Ostensible Foreign Models.”
The underlying exhibit lists multiple recipients, direct and indirect payments, beneficiary banks, stated rationales, and the Epstein affiliated accounts that originated the money.
The receiving institutions included American and foreign banks. Recorded explanations included tuition, rent, trips, immigration services, and personal expenses.
“Ostensible foreign models” is Deutsche Bank’s language. It should not be treated as a verified profession or as proof that every recipient was a victim, employee, recruiter, or participant in criminal conduct.
The exhibit is significant because it shows that Deutsche Bank grouped these transactions together for review. It also shows that the payment pattern crossed accounts, entities, and international banking systems.
Cash Withdrawals
Exhibit J examines cash withdrawals larger than $10,000.
Large cash activity is relevant to financial monitoring because cash is more difficult to trace after withdrawal. However, a large cash withdrawal is not automatically illegal.
The later New York regulatory investigation found that Deutsche Bank failed to scrutinize cash activity connected to Epstein adequately. The regulator reported suspicious withdrawals totaling more than $800,000 over several years.
The presentation therefore provides transaction level context for concerns that later appeared in formal regulatory findings.
Hedge Fund Investments
Exhibit K identifies hedge fund investments made through Southern Financial.
The presentation records five transactions involving Boothbay Absolute Strategies Fund totaling $28.25 million. It also records a $10 million transaction involving Boothbay Multi Strategy Fund.
These entries demonstrate the scale of assets that moved through Epstein controlled entities. They also show that his Deutsche Bank relationship included major investments, not only personal payments and operating expenses.
An investment in a fund does not establish misconduct by the fund or its managers. It establishes a documented financial connection that may require further investigation.
Potential Settlement Payments
Exhibit L identifies transactions that Deutsche Bank classified as potential settlement payments.
One entry records a January 4, 2019 transfer of $7 million to the law firm Searcy Denney Scarola. The bank described the transaction as a potential settlement payment.
The classification should be preserved. A bank transfer may show the date, amount, sender, recipient, and payment instructions. It may not reveal every term of a confidential settlement or the identity of the person ultimately benefiting from it.
This exhibit is important because it connects Epstein’s account activity with substantial legal settlement expenses.
Suspected Legal Expenses
Exhibit M covers suspected payments for the legal expenses of alleged co conspirators.
The bank identified payments to law firms and attempted to determine whether Epstein was covering legal expenses for other people. In some cases, that purpose was inferred from transfer information rather than established by a public legal invoice.
These transactions deserve scrutiny because paying another person’s legal expenses can reveal financial dependence or a continuing relationship. Still, payment of legal fees is not proof of guilt.
The distinction between a documented payment and the bank’s suspected purpose must remain clear.
Payments to Alleged Co Conspirators
Exhibit N presents payments of at least $10,000 to, or on behalf of, people the bank classified as alleged co conspirators.
The tables include direct transfers, loans, promissory note payments, property expenses, and payments to third parties.
For example, the presentation records substantial payments to individuals including Lesley Groff and Lawrence Visoski. Some Visoski transactions were identified as loans or promissory note payments.
The label “alleged co conspirator” reflects the bank’s classification at the time. Each person’s conduct and legal status must be evaluated separately.
Researchers can use the Epstein Search Hub to compare names, entities, dates, and payment records across additional evidence collections.
Payments to Other Epstein Affiliates
Exhibit O covers payments to Epstein affiliated individuals and entities that were not themselves onboarded as Deutsche Bank customers.
This distinction is important. A person or company could receive money from an Epstein controlled account without holding an account at Deutsche Bank.
The exhibit includes transaction details, available background information, and possible explanations for the relationship. In some entries, the bank relied on public professional profiles or internet research.
Researchers should treat these background descriptions as investigative leads, not final factual findings.
High Profile Individuals
Exhibit P identifies transactions involving high profile individuals.
The exhibit demonstrates why the identity of the actual recipient must be separated from names appearing in transfer references.
For example, the high profile payments evidence page records a May 1, 2019 payment of $53,750 to JetSuite Air that referenced Kathy Ruemmler. The bank specifically noted that Epstein did not pay Ruemmler directly.
The exhibit also records a $1 million transaction associated with Joichi Ito and Neoteny 3 LP. The stated purpose concerned a subscription and capital call.
A name in payment instructions may identify a passenger, reference, client, investment contact, or intended beneficiary. It does not necessarily identify the bank account holder who received the money.
Tuition Payments
Exhibit R summarizes tuition payments made on behalf of children and women.
The presentation identifies payments to educational institutions in the United States and other countries. It connects those payments to several Epstein controlled accounts and affiliated entities.
Tuition payments may show financial support, dependency, employment benefits, charitable assistance, or another relationship. They do not establish the recipient’s role in Epstein’s activities.
Still, the pattern is relevant when combined with payments for rent, travel, immigration services, and personal expenses. Together, these records help researchers examine how Epstein used money to maintain relationships with numerous people.
Connections to Other Financial Institutions
The final exhibit maps links to other financial institutions and wealth management firms.
The presentation includes transactions involving JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, TD Bank, Fidelity, Charles Schwab, and several international institutions.
A bank’s appearance in the exhibit can have several meanings. It may have held a beneficiary account, processed a transfer, received assets during offboarding, or maintained another financial relationship.
Therefore, inclusion does not prove that every institution directly managed Epstein’s wealth or knew the full context of every transaction.
The exhibit does show that Epstein’s financial activity extended beyond one bank. It moved through a larger financial network.
Regulatory Findings Against Deutsche Bank
In July 2020, the New York State Department of Financial Services announced a $150 million penalty covering Deutsche Bank’s compliance failures involving Epstein and two unrelated correspondent banking relationships.
The regulator found that Deutsche Bank had accepted Epstein as a customer in 2013 despite knowing about his criminal history. It also found that the bank failed to monitor his accounts according to the risks he presented.
The regulator identified hundreds of transactions that should have received greater scrutiny. These included settlement payments, legal expenses, cash withdrawals, tuition payments, payments to women, and payments involving alleged co conspirators.
The regulatory order provides independent context for the patterns documented in EFTA01681865.
Removal From the Justice Department Website
The Epstein Data record identifies EFTA01681865 as a document preserved from the Justice Department production.
Epstein Data also reports that the document was removed from the Justice Department website after publication. Individual preserved pages remain available through the site’s full text corpus.
The current Justice Department Epstein Library states that its materials may be updated when additional documents are identified or when sensitive information requires correction.
The removal does not invalidate the contents of the preserved document. However, researchers should record where their copy came from and distinguish the preserved evidence record from the current Justice Department website.
Key Takeaways
Deutsche Bank mapped a financial relationship involving 76 accounts, including 56 accounts it classified as Epstein controlled.
The network included personal accounts, trusts, charities, aircraft companies, property entities, investment structures, and professional service companies.
The Butterfly Trust served as an active payment structure with changing beneficiaries and repeated transfers.
The bank reviewed payments involving women, alleged co conspirators, lawyers, educational institutions, investment funds, employees, associates, and high profile individuals.
The presentation documents substantial cash withdrawals, legal expenses, settlement related payments, tuition payments, and international transfers.
A recorded payment establishes a financial connection. It does not automatically establish a crime, the recipient’s knowledge, or the bank’s stated purpose.
Deutsche Bank’s own presentation must be read alongside the later New York regulatory findings, which confirmed serious failures in how the bank monitored Epstein’s relationship.
Why This Document Matters
EFTA01681865 shows how Epstein’s financial activity was distributed across trusts, companies, charities, investments, properties, and personal relationships.
It also demonstrates the importance of following entities rather than searching only for Epstein’s name. Many transactions moved through organizations such as Southern Financial, the Butterfly Trust, HBRK Associates, LSJE, and other affiliated structures.
Most importantly, the presentation reveals what Deutsche Bank could reconstruct from its own records after Epstein’s arrest. That reconstruction provides a valuable roadmap for examining the institutions and financial systems that continued serving Epstein after his 2008 conviction.
Sources
- Deutsche Bank Presentation EFTA01681865
- Butterfly Trust Timeline Evidence Page
- Foreign Model Payment Summary Evidence Page
- High Profile Payment Evidence Page
- New York Department of Financial Services Deutsche Bank Enforcement Release
- United States Department of Justice Epstein Library
- Justice Department 2026 Publication Announcement
- EpsteinWiki Network Mapping Guide
- EpsteinWiki Search Hub