Igor Zinoviev

Snapshot	Verified scope
Name	Igor Zinoviev. His employment affidavit also uses the spelling Igor Zinoview.
Professional background	Former mixed-martial-arts competitor identified in Pancrase’s official profile.
Documented connection	In a 2009 sworn affidavit, he described working for Jeffrey Epstein as a driver, bodyguard and trainer.
Records examined	Employment and discovery filings; 47 email documents grouped into 19 related sets; 290 manifest scans grouped into 174 records; one relevant bank-statement entry.
Reading the records	A request, booking, copied email, witness listing or name on a manifest has a different evidentiary meaning. None alone establishes participation in abuse.

Igor Zinoviev’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein is documented most directly in his employment affidavit and in correspondence assigning transport and household tasks. The official Pancrase profile identifies his combat-sports career and a March 1998 UFC appearance. The employment affidavit itself bridges the two surname spellings: its heading uses Zinoviev, while its opening paragraph uses Zinoview.

This article distinguishes his own sworn statements, other people’s testimony, administrative records and later public comments. The manifest section transcribes visible name entries as records, with duplicate copies and crossed-out names identified. It does not resolve a passenger’s identity solely from a matching name.

---

Key takeaways

• His sworn account gives November 2005 as the start of employment and identifies driving, protection and training duties.
• Emails document specific work requests, changing itineraries and ordinary property logistics. The reviewed set does not contain a substantive reply that can confidently be attributed to him.
• The reviewed manifest subset contains 172 active name-entry records, with date discrepancies, corrections and uncertainty identified below. Two additional records have crossed-out entries and are excluded from that total.
• A court order allowed discovery to proceed. A witness disclosure describes anticipated evidence; it is not testimony by Zinoviev or a judicial finding against him.
• The records and public responses must be read together, with uncertainty preserved rather than converted into allegations.

---

Employment account and court proceedings

In the affidavit filed with Document 84 on November 9, 2009, Zinoviev said he began working for Epstein in November 2005 and had not known him before that employment. He described himself as Epstein’s driver, bodyguard and trainer. He also said Epstein had never discussed, or attempted to discuss, facts or information relating to legal matters with him. These are his sworn statements, not findings adopted by the court.

The plaintiff’s November 28, 2009 response argued that a lack of discussions about legal matters did not rule out relevant observations he might have made at work, and that his claimed lack of knowledge could be tested through questioning. The response cited the overlap between his employment and the police investigation as a reason for discovery. It described a deposition scheduled for December 18, 2009, not completed testimony.

The December 3, 2009 order denied his motion for a protective order. It found no extraordinary circumstances warranting prohibition of the deposition and no basis to limit the questions. Counsel remained able to invoke applicable privileges during the deposition. The order concerns discovery procedure; it does not establish that a deposition subsequently took place or determine criminal responsibility.

In October 15, 2009 deposition testimony, pilot Larry Visoski said he knew Igor Zinoviev and had met him on the airplane. Asked about Zinoviev’s affiliation with Epstein, Visoski said he did not know. Later in that transcript, he described a Sikorsky plant tour in Palm Beach County involving Epstein, himself and two people named only by their first names, including Igor. His estimate of when the tour occurred was explicitly a guess. That passage is contextual testimony, not a dated passenger manifest.

A plaintiff’s disclosure filed in the Maxwell civil case in March 2016 lists Igor Zinoview as entry 94 and attributes knowledge of the conduct at issue to him. This is the plaintiff’s description of a potential witness. It does not mean Zinoviev adopted the assertion or that the court found it proven.

---

What the correspondence documents

The clearest task assignment appears in a January 23, 2012 pickup exchange. After Janusz Banasiak asks which of them should bring a car, the reply says Epstein wants Igor to collect him the next day and asks for confirmation. A March 30 instruction assigns the two drivers different vehicles and asks for temporary storage of boxes, bags and frames before the items return to the aircraft. These messages establish requests; they do not establish completion or reveal the contents of the items.

The July 2011 maintenance chain requires especially careful attribution. Both men receive instructions, but the explanation and apology about tires, bicycles and gardening are Banasiak’s. A later instruction asks both men to trim hedges when needed. It should not be presented as an admission by Zinoviev.

Travel planning also changes within the correspondence. November 2010 bookings move a proposed outbound trip from November 21 to November 20, followed by a return reservation for November 29. The preparation message asks Zinoviev to arrive before Epstein to prepare equipment. The bookings do not prove boarding or the length of a stay. In July 2011, an explicit cancellation interrupts earlier Palm Beach plans; a subsequent reservation is itself described as uncertain.

The August 2010 ASU scheduling chain names Zinoviev on a precautionary visitor list and expressly says that not everyone listed may accompany Epstein. A tentative program and a security-name list do not demonstrate that Zinoviev attended ASU or its Biodesign Institute.

The table accounts for all 47 email documents, totaling 68 pages, in the reviewed selection. Related copies, quoted replies and changed plans are grouped into 19 sets to avoid turning repeated releases into separate events. Page references are one-based PDF pages. Dates describe messages or stated plans, not automatically completed activity.

---

Manifest entries and duplicate copies

A separate review inspected all 290 House Oversight-stamped manifest images identified in completed full-name searches for Igor Zinoviev and Igor Zinoview. Matching aircraft, trip number, date, route and form details reduce those images to 174 distinct records. Of these, 172 contain an active visible name entry and two contain crossed-out entries that are excluded. These are counts of the records returned by those searches, not a lifetime flight total or proof of 172 completed journeys by an independently identified person.

The table retains each route and surname as read on the forms. Where copies produce different v/w readings, both readings are shown. Of the 172 active records, 160 have legible dates, seven have explicit legible year corrections on the scan, three have year discrepancies, one records an impossible date and one has an uncertain overwritten year. Handwriting can make the final surname letter ambiguous. The employment affidavit establishes that both surname spellings were used by Epstein’s employee; the manifest names alone are not independent proof that every entry refers to the athlete. An active entry does not by itself prove boarding or a visit to Little St. James. No redacted companion is identified or reconstructed.

• The October 22, 2005 manifest predates the employment start stated in the affidavit. The legacy flight log independently corroborates that date, route and trip number, but its passenger area is redacted. This timing difference remains unresolved and is not proof that the affidavit was false.
• Three copies of trip 382 record July 4 with the preprinted year 2005 although their trip and aircraft-hour sequence fits the sequence between June and August 2006 records. The table preserves the printed year; a possible form error is an inference, not a corrected date.
• Two forms give August 30 with the preprinted year 2006 for trips 1944 and 1945 even though their sequence lies among 2007 trips. The first form also explicitly says Epstein was not on board while Igor’s entry remains active. A name entry therefore must not automatically be described as travel with Epstein.
• Trip 1972 records November 31, 2007, an impossible date. Trip 2078 has an overwritten year that appears to read 2010 but is not sufficiently clear to normalize. Seven other forms explicitly correct printed 2009 to handwritten 2010; the table distinguishes those legible changes from inference.
• The July 21, 2007 record prints EWR in both route fields. It is retained as written rather than given an assumed destination.
• The two excluded 2010 records have struck-through names. One also expressly says there were no passengers. Neither is counted as an active passenger entry.

---

A vehicle reference in a released statement

The JPMorgan Chase statement for September 29 through October 31, 2007 identifies Jeffrey E. Epstein as the account holder. On PDF page 6, Bates EFTA01527019, a wire-debit description to Ray Catena of Monmouth Corp includes a reference naming Igor Zinoviev and a 2008 Lexus RX350.

The reference is narrower than a vehicle ownership record. It does not by itself establish who received or owned the car, whether a payment was a gift, loan or compensation, or any criminal purpose. No amount is assigned here because the reviewed extraction does not provide a reliably aligned transaction row. The account-holder header and relevant entry were checked; this is not a full audit of the statement.

---

Public comments and responses

In the August 2019 Intelligencer interview, Zinoviev described working as Epstein’s bodyguard, trainer and Palm Beach driver, traveling with him and living in his guesthouse. He denied seeing teenage girls or improper conduct. Interviewer M.L. Nestel challenged him with remarks attributed to their unpublished 2015 conversation; Zinoviev disputed parts. Alleged advance police warnings appeared in Nestel’s recitation, not a new affirmative account. His comments about Epstein’s death supplied no supporting evidence. The edited transcript cautions about language ambiguity; he could not recall his employment start date.

For the death-investigation context, the Justice Department Inspector General’s June 2023 release reports the medical examiner’s suicide determination and says the review found no evidence contradicting the FBI’s conclusion that Epstein’s death was not a criminal act. It separately identifies serious custodial failures.

A later first-person recording, Lytes Out’s May 27, 2024 career interview, includes an Epstein chapter beginning at 1:14:45. That segment’s substantive content has not been verified for this article and is not used to support claims here.

---

Coverage and limits

• The email review covers the 47 documents individually linked above, including duplicate releases and quoted chains. It does not claim to cover every email in the released corpus.
• The manifest review covers all 290 original manifest images identified by the two completed full-name searches and linked in the table, without a source-number cutoff. Searches can still omit records through spelling, handwriting or indexing errors. Non-manifest book-excerpt leads are not counted as travel records.
• Email pages were read in the source viewer. The manifest images and the cited affidavit, Visoski and witness-disclosure pages were visually checked. This distinction matters where OCR or handwritten text is uncertain.
• Other litigation filings, repeated disclosure versions and a later long-form podcast were located but not fully verified for this article. Search snippets, exhibit-list titles and a proposed discovery-search term are not treated as proof of their underlying claims.
• A redacted complainant’s letter was not used to turn relayed statements into Zinoviev’s testimony. No survivor identity, redacted name, private contact detail, account number or booking identifier is reproduced.
• The reviewed material establishes work-related records and statements. It does not establish that Zinoviev participated in abuse, knew the contents of transported items or held an intelligence role.

---

Sources

• Pancrase: Igor Zinoviev professional profile.
• Employment affidavit, PDF pp. 6–7; protective-order ruling, PDF pp. 1–3; plaintiff’s response, PDF pp. 1–5.
• Visoski deposition, PDF pp. 39–40 and 53; plaintiff witness disclosure, PDF p. 15.
• Each of the 47 correspondence documents and each of the 290 manifest images is linked by its release ID in the tables above. Legacy flight log, PDF p. 117, Bates EFTA02846576 supplies the limited October 2005 date-and-route cross-check.
• October 2007 account statement, header p. 1 and vehicle reference p. 6.
• M.L. Nestel’s Intelligencer interview, published August 14, 2019. Lytes Out’s 2024 interview is listed as an additional first-person source; only its publisher, date and chapter listing were checked here.
• DOJ Inspector General release, June 27, 2023, p. 2.