EFTA01249507: FBI Intake Report Alleging Trump Linked Underage Sex Parties at a Golf Course

UpdatedSeptember 10, 2026

ByEpsteinWiki

Snapshot

Field	Detail
Primary document	EFTA01249507 through EFTA01249508
Record type	Federal Bureau of Investigation intake report
Intake date	June 21, 2021
Time received	4:07 p.m. EDT
FBI case	50D-NY-3027571
FBI serial	609
Case subject	Jeffrey Epstein, child sex trafficking
Internal evidence sequence	3501.306-002
Earlier related intake	EFTA01249502 through EFTA01249506, internal sequence 3501.306-001
Later internal summary	EFTA01660651, dated August 7, 2025
People named in the allegation	Donald Trump, Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, and Robin Leach
Places mentioned	An unidentified Donald Trump golf course and the Cayman Islands
Classification	Unclassified
Evidence status	Authentic FBI record of a tip, not proof that the allegations were true
Claim status	Unverified in the reviewed record
Corroborating attachments	None included with this intake
Public FBI finding	None stated in EFTA01249507 or EFTA01249508
Last fact check	September 10, 2026

Key Takeaways

The document proves that the FBI National Threat Operations Center received and recorded a call on June 21, 2021.
The caller alleged having recordings of Trump, Epstein, and Maxwell discussing marketing strategies for sex parties involving minors at a Trump golf course.
The caller claimed the recordings had been mailed to an unidentified lawyer in the Cayman Islands. No recording, mailing receipt, lawyer name, affidavit, transcript, or forensic report is attached.
The caller also made extreme allegations involving the Sinaloa Cartel, surveillance cameras, murder, burial at a golf course, and a threat against the caller.
The intake does not identify the golf course, event dates, alleged victims, burial locations, or the Cayman Islands lawyer.
A related 2020 intake described similar allegations at the Trump golf course in Rancho Palos Verdes, California, during 1995 and 1996.
The Rancho Palos Verdes timeline materially conflicts with that earlier account. The golf club’s own published history says construction began in 1998, the first holes were completed in 1999, Trump purchased the property in 2002, and Trump National officially opened in 2006.
An August 2025 FBI email summarized the 2020 complainant and the 2021 caller in separate rows. It says the 2020 complainant was interviewed and deemed not credible. It does not display a response or disposition for the 2021 caller’s row.
The credibility finding about the 2020 complainant must not automatically be assigned to the apparently separate 2021 caller.
No reviewed document shows that agents obtained the claimed recordings, contacted the Cayman Islands lawyer, searched the golf course, located remains, or substantiated the caller’s account.

Survivor Reading Note

This article concerns allegations of child sexual exploitation, trafficking, threats, and homicide. It does not repeat redacted identifying information or unnecessary intimate detail.

An FBI intake form records information supplied to the FBI. It is not an FBI finding that the information is true. At the same time, the existence of credibility problems in one report does not justify dismissing all survivor reports. Each allegation must be evaluated through records, witnesses, dates, locations, and physical or digital evidence.

What EFTA01249507 Is

EFTA01249507 begins a two page FBI intake record. The first page is stamped EFTA01249507 and the continuation page is stamped EFTA01249508. The document is dated June 21, 2021, and states that the call was received at 4:07 p.m. Eastern time.

The header identifies FBI case 50D-NY-3027571 and the subject “EPSTEIN, JEFFREY; CHILD SEX TRAFFICKING.” The record is marked Serial 609 and bears the secondary evidence sequence 3501.306-002. It is labeled unclassified.

The name of the person who drafted the intake is redacted. The caller’s name, date of birth, and other identifying information are also redacted. The public copy states that it is subject to specified paragraphs of a protective order, but the two pages do not identify that order or explain the restrictions.

The record contains no enclosure notation. It does not include audio, video, a transcript of a recording, photographs, a map, a witness statement, a property record, a police report, or a forensic examination.

What the Caller Alleged

The intake states that the caller contacted the FBI to report that Donald Trump knew about and funded sex parties involving minors at a Donald Trump golf course.

According to the intake, the caller said that an FBI agent had recently interviewed him but that he had felt triggered as a victim and had not disclosed everything. The public document does not identify the agent, interview date, field office, related interview report, or reason the earlier interview occurred.

The caller alleged possessing recordings of Donald Trump, Jeffrey Epstein, and Ghislaine Maxwell discussing marketing strategies for high profile sex parties at the golf course. The caller said those recordings had been mailed to a lawyer in the Cayman Islands.

The caller also alleged that he had been part of the Sinaloa Cartel and had worked closely with Epstein and Maxwell. He claimed his status with Epstein and Maxwell allowed him to leave the cartel.

The intake says the caller attributed statements to Trump in the claimed recordings. According to the caller, Trump said he knew about parties involving minors and used what the intake calls “house money” from the golf course to finance them. The document does not define that phrase or provide accounting records.

The caller further alleged witnessing Robin Leach strangle a young girl during a party. He claimed she was buried behind the golf course’s nineteenth hole and said he knew of three occasions in which girls were murdered and buried there. He also reported being threatened that he would be placed in a hole if he spoke about what he had witnessed.

The continuation page states that a redacted person gave Maxwell the idea to install cameras at the golf course to observe cartel members and understand how to market victims between twelve and fourteen years old to the cartel. Because the name or pronoun before that statement is redacted, the public record does not safely establish who allegedly proposed the cameras.

Every statement in this section is an allegation attributed to the caller. The FBI intake does not endorse it.

The Earlier Related Intake, EFTA01249502

The internal evidence numbers connect this record to an earlier document sequence. EFTA01249502 through EFTA01249506 is marked 3501.306-001. EFTA01249507 and EFTA01249508 are marked 3501.306-002.

The earlier record is a five page FBI intake dated July 9, 2020, based on an online tip submitted the previous evening. It describes a person who claimed to be a victim and witness of a trafficking operation at the Trump golf course in Rancho Palos Verdes, California, during 1995 and 1996.

That complainant alleged that Ghislaine Maxwell brokered parties involving male and female minors and named Epstein, Robin Leach, and Trump as participants. The complainant reported participating in parties, hearing that missing girls had been murdered and buried at the property, and receiving a threat from a person described as Trump’s head of security.

The two intake sequences plainly overlap in subject matter. Both mention a Trump golf course, Epstein, Maxwell, Leach, parties involving minors, threats, and alleged burials on the property. The 2021 intake adds claimed recordings, a Cayman Islands lawyer, cartel connections, surveillance cameras, and a specific allegation against Leach.

The shared evidence sequence supports treating the records as related. It does not prove that the callers were the same person, that one caller corroborated the other, or that agents verified either account.

The August 2025 FBI Summary

EFTA01660651 is the first page of an internal email chain dated August 7, 2025, with the subject “RE: NTOC Names.” The email contains a table with columns for a redacted name, complaint summary, FBI response, and criminal history.

The table summarizes the 2020 Rancho Palos Verdes complainant and the 2021 caller in separate rows with separate redacted name fields.

For the 2020 online complainant, the response column states that the person was spoken to and deemed not credible. It adds that research identified three separate police incidents involving mandatory psychiatric evaluations. The criminal history column mentions a possible order of protection matching the person’s name and date of birth.

That notation documents the FBI’s later assessment of the 2020 complainant. It does not establish that every factual component of the report was independently disproved. Mental health history alone is not a responsible basis for rejecting a survivor, but the recorded credibility assessment and the property timeline conflict are both material when evaluating this particular claim.

The next row summarizes the 2021 caller’s allegations about recordings, cartel dealings, and Robin Leach. The visible response and criminal history cells for that row are blank. A later row concerning a different complainant contains the phrase “no probative information.” The table layout shows that phrase does not belong to the EFTA01249507 caller.

The reviewed 2025 summary therefore does not provide a stated FBI credibility judgment or disposition for the 2021 caller. It also does not say that the claimed recordings were received or examined.

The Rancho Palos Verdes Timeline Conflict

The earlier intake places the alleged activity at a Trump golf course in Rancho Palos Verdes during 1995 and 1996. That identification creates a serious chronological problem.

The Trump National Golf Club Los Angeles history states that the property was farmland before it became the Ocean Trails project. Its timeline says:

the Ocean Trails proposal was approved in 1994;
groundbreaking began in January 1998;
nine holes were completed in February 1999;
the course opened to the public with fifteen holes in November 2000;
Donald Trump purchased Ocean Trails on November 26, 2002; and
Trump National Golf Club officially opened with eighteen holes on January 20, 2006.

On that published timeline, a Trump owned golf course was not operating at that location in 1995 or 1996. Indeed, physical construction had not yet begun.

Several explanations are theoretically possible. The earlier complainant could have misstated the years, misidentified the location, used the current property name when recalling a different place, or combined events. The record supplies no evidence choosing among those possibilities.

This conflict does not prove that no misconduct ever occurred at any Trump property. It does mean the exact time and place allegation in EFTA01249502 is not compatible with the property’s published history as written.

EFTA01249507 does not name Rancho Palos Verdes or provide event dates. The earlier record supplies that location and time frame, but researchers should not silently import them into the 2021 caller’s account as established facts.

Evidence Assessment

Question	Assessment
Is the FBI intake record authentic?	The document is part of the DOJ production and carries FBI case, serial, and evidence markings.
Does the document prove the allegations?	No. It proves that the FBI recorded the caller’s statements.
Are the claimed recordings attached?	No.
Is a Cayman Islands lawyer identified?	No.
Is the golf course identified in EFTA01249507?	No.
Are event dates supplied in EFTA01249507?	No.
Are alleged victims identified?	No, and EpsteinWiki would not publish unnecessary identifying information if they were.
Is physical evidence of burial described?	No.
Does the record contain a search, excavation, or forensic result?	No.
Does the record establish cartel membership?	No. That is another claim attributed to the caller.
Did the FBI deem the 2020 complainant credible?	No. A later summary says the person was deemed not credible.
Did the FBI state a credibility finding for the 2021 caller?	Not in the reviewed pages. The later summary leaves the visible response field blank.
Does the Rancho Palos Verdes history match the 1995 and 1996 allegation?	No. The club’s own history says construction began in 1998 and Trump purchased it in 2002.
Was anyone charged based on this intake?	No charge tied to this tip was located in the reviewed record.

What the Record Proves

The record proves that an identifiable caller, whose identity is redacted from the public copy, contacted the FBI on June 21, 2021. It proves the FBI created an intake under the Epstein child sex trafficking case and preserved the caller’s allegations as Serial 609.

The related records prove that similar golf course allegations had been submitted in 2020 and that the FBI later organized both reports in an internal list of NTOC allegations mentioning prominent names.

The records also establish that the FBI did not treat every tip as verified merely because it entered the system. The 2025 table includes response and credibility information for some complainants and leaves other rows unresolved in the visible copy.

What the Record Does Not Prove

The intake does not prove that a sex party occurred at a Trump golf course. It does not prove that Trump, Epstein, Maxwell, or Leach participated in such an event. It does not prove that Trump financed an event, that Maxwell installed cameras, or that any cartel used the location.

It does not prove that the alleged recordings existed, were authentic, or were mailed to the Cayman Islands. It does not establish the identity of the lawyer, a chain of custody, or whether agents attempted to recover the material.

It does not prove that anyone was killed or buried at a golf course. No named missing person, death record, burial location, witness corroboration, search warrant, excavation, forensic examination, or recovered remains appear in the two page intake.

The fact that Trump and Epstein had a documented social relationship does not independently corroborate this tip. Association evidence and allegation evidence answer different questions and should not be collapsed.

Donald Trump and the Allegation

Donald Trump is directly named in the caller’s allegations. The intake attributes to the caller the claims that Trump knew about the alleged parties, helped fund them through golf course money, and appeared in recordings with Epstein and Maxwell.

No Trump statement responding specifically to EFTA01249507 was located during the source review. The Department of Justice has broadly rejected a number of allegations about Trump found in released Epstein records, but a broad political or departmental statement is not a document specific evidentiary analysis.

The proper description is therefore narrow: an FBI intake records these allegations against Trump, the reviewed record does not corroborate them, and the associated location chronology raises a substantial problem for the earlier related tip.

Ghislaine Maxwell, Jeffrey Epstein, and Robin Leach

The caller alleged that Epstein and Maxwell participated in the recorded discussions and worked closely with the caller in a cartel context. The record provides no recording or independent evidence for those claims.

The caller alleged that Maxwell was involved in planning surveillance at the golf course and marketing children to cartel members. The redaction at the start of that sentence prevents a reliable determination of who allegedly proposed the cameras.

The accusation against Robin Leach is a homicide allegation supplied by the caller. Leach died in 2018 and could not respond to a 2021 intake. No charge, official finding, identified victim, or corroborating evidence tied to that allegation was located in the reviewed materials.

Epstein’s crimes and Maxwell’s later conviction do not make every separate allegation involving their names true. Proven conduct provides investigative context, not automatic corroboration.

Investigative Leads Created by the Intake

Although the allegations remain unverified, the intake identifies testable leads that investigators could have pursued:

the identity of the FBI agent who allegedly conducted the earlier interview;
the report or recording from that earlier interview;
the identity and contact information of the Cayman Islands lawyer;
postal, courier, customs, email, or telephone records concerning the alleged delivery;
the format, date, metadata, and provenance of the claimed recordings;
every Trump golf property matching the caller’s description;
ownership, construction, staffing, event, security, accounting, and surveillance records for any candidate property;
identities and employment histories of security personnel;
missing person and homicide records that could be compared with the claimed dates and locations;
land surveys, utility work, landscaping records, soil disturbances, and law enforcement searches;
records concerning any claimed relationship with the Sinaloa Cartel; and
comparison of the 2020 and 2021 complainants to determine whether they knew one another or repeated a common source.

The public pages do not show which, if any, of these steps occurred.

Fact Check

Checked September 10, 2026.

Is EFTA01249507 an FBI finding that Trump funded parties involving minors?

No. It is an FBI intake recording what a caller alleged.

Did the FBI possess the claimed recordings?

The reviewed record does not show that. The caller claimed the recordings were sent to a lawyer in the Cayman Islands.

Does the document identify the lawyer?

No.

Does EFTA01249507 identify Rancho Palos Verdes?

No. That location appears in the earlier related intake beginning at EFTA01249502.

Could a Trump owned golf course have operated at Rancho Palos Verdes in 1995 or 1996?

Not according to the club’s published history. Construction began in 1998, the course first opened under the Ocean Trails name in 2000, Trump purchased it in 2002, and Trump National officially opened in 2006.

Did the FBI deem the EFTA01249507 caller not credible?

The reviewed documents do not say that. The later summary applies that assessment to the earlier 2020 online complainant. The 2021 caller appears in a separate row without a visible response.

Does a blank response field mean the FBI found the caller credible?

No. It means the public summary does not state a disposition in that field.

Did the FBI confirm a murder or burial at the golf course?

No confirmation appears in the reviewed record.

Were Trump, Epstein, Maxwell, or Leach charged because of this intake?

No charge tied to this intake was located.

Does the protective order notation validate the allegations?

No. It describes handling restrictions on the produced document, not the truth of its contents.

Questions Still Unanswered

Who was the caller, and what was the basis for the caller’s claimed firsthand knowledge?
Which FBI agent allegedly interviewed the caller before June 21, 2021?
Does an FD 302, recording, agent note, or referral document exist for that interview?
Did the FBI compare the 2021 caller with the separate 2020 online complainant?
Were the two complainants connected, or did they rely on a common source?
Which Trump golf course did the 2021 caller mean?
When did the alleged events occur?
Who was the Cayman Islands lawyer?
Did agents request legal assistance, issue process, or contact Cayman Islands authorities?
Were any recordings recovered, preserved, authenticated, or forensically examined?
What did the caller mean by “house money” from the golf course?
Were accounting or event records reviewed?
Were security employees, contractors, club members, or event staff interviewed?
Did investigators compare the murder allegations with missing person cases?
Was any property searched or examined for graves or disturbed soil?
Why is the response field blank for the 2021 caller in the August 2025 summary?
Did another FBI office receive a referral or close the lead under a different serial?
Which protective order is referenced at the bottom of the pages?
Why were the 2020 and 2021 records placed in the same 3501.306 evidence sequence?

Limitations

This article evaluates the public redacted copies of EFTA01249502 through EFTA01249508 and the later FBI summary beginning at EFTA01660651. The redactions prevent identification of the complainants, FBI personnel, and possible witnesses.

The absence of a follow up record in the reviewed corpus is not proof that no investigative step occurred. A referral, interview, legal request, or closing memorandum could remain sealed, withheld, differently indexed, or filed under another case or serial.

The property timeline conflict is strong evidence against the earlier tip’s exact location and date combination. It does not identify what the complainant may have intended to describe.

The 2025 email’s credibility assessment applies to the 2020 complainant’s row. It should not be transferred to the apparently separate 2021 caller without evidence.

No EpsteinWiki sleuth Substack article devoted specifically to EFTA01249507 was located during the source check. No unrelated Substack article has been included as filler.

Related EpsteinWiki Pages

Sources

EFTA01249507 Download

PostedFebruary 3, 2026