Mademoiselle Agency
Snapshot
| Field | Documented information |
|---|---|
| Entity | Mademoiselle Agency, a Paris modeling agency founded in 1994 |
| Name clarification | The agency spells its name Mademoiselle, rather than “Madamoiselle.” |
| Why it appears in Epstein records | Agency signatures appear in correspondence preserved in Jeffrey Epstein’s files. A correspondent identified through multiple records as Victoria Housez used a Mademoiselle signature in some emails. Other records contain a report of a visit to the agency and forwarded modeling correspondence. |
| Main period examined | 2011 through 2013 |
| Historical address in the emails | 111 rue de Longchamp, 75116 Paris |
| Central evidence question | Which actions belonged to an individual correspondent, and which, if any, were known to or authorized by the agency? |
| Finding | The records establish connections through signatures and correspondence. They do not establish that Epstein owned Mademoiselle Agency or that the company directed a trafficking operation. |
Mademoiselle Agency’s published history describes a Paris agency founded in 1994. Its historical address in the Epstein era emails should not be confused with an address shown in a current agency listing. The records below concern the agency’s appearance in released documents, the conduct described in those documents, and the limits of what can be attributed to the company. www.mademoiselleagency.fr
Why This Entry Requires Separate Threads
The name Mademoiselle appears in several ways across the files. A visitor mentioned the agency to Epstein in 2012. A woman identified in investigative reporting as Victoria Housez, also named Victoria Housez Spiridonova in a fuller signature, corresponded with Epstein about prospective models and used the agency’s name in some signatures. A January 2013 forwarded email about a Brazilian person contains an agency signature, but its outer sender is redacted. A separate forwarded chain begins with modeling correspondence between Studio Tamara in Belarus and Mademoiselle in Paris.
Those are connected research leads, but they are not one continuous transaction. An email signature can identify a professional affiliation or a source within a forwarded chain. It does not automatically show that agency management wrote the outer email, approved its forwarding to Epstein, represented the person described, or knew what happened afterward. rima.media
Victoria Housez and the Agency Signatures
Novaya Gazeta Europe’s examination of the released correspondence traced a Russian speaking correspondent through signatures that identify Mademoiselle Agency, Victoria Housez, and Victoria Housez Spiridonova. The publication reported additional research linking those names to Victoria Ginsburg Spiridonova. This is an identification assembled across records. It does not justify revealing the identity behind every separately redacted sender field. rima.media
The August 2011 exchange in EFTA00917152 records Epstein asking this correspondent to find “new girlfriends.” Other exchanges reviewed by Novaya describe photographs sent to Epstein and castings arranged for him. In EFTA00661254, an exchange about bringing women from Moscow to Paris, the correspondent asked whether Epstein wanted an assistant, a casting, or an escort. Novaya found no answer to that question in the reviewed archive. The question is evidence that she raised those possible purposes; it is not proof that Mademoiselle Agency offered escort services. rima.media
Epstein’s age preference in EFTA01862981 is particularly relevant. The correspondence reviewed by Novaya shows him telling the individual to seek women aged 18 to 21 if she wanted to make money scouting. He also complained that one proposed woman was 23. In EFTA01137383, an introduction of a Russian woman, the sender described her as 19 and “ready to travel.” These ages and travel descriptions are claims within the emails. They do not independently establish a person’s age, consent, actual travel, or a meeting with Epstein. rima.media
Novaya’s examination of EFTA00594967 also identified a bank entry of approximately $2,000 to an account associated with the correspondent, with the payment marked as a gift. That entry supports a financial link between Epstein and the individual identified in the reporting. It is not evidence of a payment to Mademoiselle Agency, and the label does not establish the payment’s underlying purpose. rima.media
Scouting Proposals, Money, and Other Agency Plans
The correspondent’s discussions with Epstein extended beyond individual photographs. American Freakshow’s investigation by Nina Burleigh and Katie Chenoweth reviewed a much larger body of emails it attributed to Housez. In EFTA00911036, an exchange about a proposed agency business plan, Epstein told her to focus on showing that she could scout rather than preparing plans for an agency. Her reply in EFTA01865834 discussed scouting for something beyond the ordinary model business. These are conversations about proposals; they do not document an agency Epstein actually established or acquired. Uncovering the Epstein Network
In EFTA01987612, an April 2012 exchange, Epstein complained that the correspondent had produced photographs but little more. She replied that she needed practical support and a budget to produce more. In EFTA01891928, a September 2012 exchange, she told him she had found a Serbian scout who placed people in New York, London, and Paris and suggested a possible collaboration. The reporting says Epstein then asked for her bank details. These exchanges show discussion of scouting, resources, and potential contacts. They do not demonstrate that Mademoiselle Agency approved a scouting network or received the money discussed. Uncovering the Epstein Network
The same investigation describes a March 2013 exchange in EFTA00652499 in which Housez defended her work and Epstein criticized its results after what he described as two years and substantial spending. That is evidence of an ongoing relationship between the two correspondents. Epstein’s characterization of spending is not, without accounting records tied to the company, a measure of payments to Mademoiselle. Uncovering the Epstein Network
American Freakshow also reported correspondence concerning Leon Black and money Housez sought or discussed. Those claims are part of the wider investigation into the individual’s relationships. They should not be converted into a claim that Black financed Mademoiselle Agency. The reporting includes a response from Black’s lawyer concerning his relationship with Epstein. Uncovering the Epstein Network
A January 2012 Visit to Mademoiselle
EFTA00672325, a January 31, 2012 email sent to Epstein, contains a correspondent’s account of visiting “Mademoiselle model agency” that afternoon. The writer compared its models unfavorably with those at New Madison and asserted that Mademoiselle was “on sale.”
The record establishes what the visitor told Epstein. It does not supply a sale notice, proposed price, ownership document, negotiation, or completed purchase. It should not be cited as proof that Epstein bought, financed, or controlled Mademoiselle. yirah.fi
The January 2013 Brazilian Introduction
A January 17, 2013 message sent to an account associated with Epstein described a newly arrived 19 year old Brazilian person in sexualized language. It listed five JPG files as attachments. In two of the clearer surviving versions, a forwarded portion includes a Mademoiselle Agency signature and 111 rue de Longchamp, 75116 Paris. The identity of the outer sender is redacted. The five listed photographs are not reproduced as viewable images in the public PDFs. epsteinwiki.com
Four EFTA productions preserve overlapping versions of the same email:
| Production | What the version contributes |
|---|---|
| EFTA00659212: Brazilian introduction and attachment list | Clearly displays the stated age of 19 and the five JPG filenames. |
| EFTA00952636: introduction with Mademoiselle signature | Preserves the age, agency name, historical Paris address, and attachment listing. |
| EFTA01187999: another copy with agency signature | Preserves additional signature detail while redacting personal information. |
| EFTA02706746: later copy with damaged age text | Contains a text encoding defect that obscures the first digit. The clearer overlapping copies read 19, not nine. |
The EpsteinWiki document analysis of EFTA02706746 compares the productions page by page. Four document numbers do not mean four introductions. The available email does not establish who supplied the photographs, whether the person was represented by Mademoiselle, whether they consented to the images being shared, whether anyone at agency management knew the email was forwarded, or whether Epstein opened it or met them. epsteinwiki.com
The February 2013 Video Chain
EFTA00679247, a February 7, 2013 email headed “TR: video”, preserves a forwarded chain with a Victoria Housez and Mademoiselle Agency signature and references video attachments. It places that signed correspondence in material directed toward Epstein. The public text and attachment labels alone cannot establish who appears in the videos, their ages, or whether Epstein viewed the files. rima.media
Studio Tamara and the Belarusian Correspondence
EFTA00953461, an early 2013 correspondence chain, documents a separate route through which modeling information reached Epstein’s files. Nasha Niva’s examination of the chain found business correspondence between Belarusian modeling agency Studio Tamara and Mademoiselle. One message offered four prospective models. Another sent photographs, with “bikini” in an attachment filename. A Mademoiselle correspondent forwarded information toward Epstein and described a woman as arriving in March and being 18 years old. The message supplies that description; it does not independently confirm her age or arrival. nashaniva.com
Nasha Niva’s follow up with founder Tamara Goncharova reported her statement that Studio Tamara’s exchange with Mademoiselle concerned placing models for work in Paris. She denied that she or her agency had a connection to Epstein’s activities and said she did not know why its business correspondence had appeared in his files. The available record does not show that Studio Tamara knew its messages were forwarded to Epstein or that any person discussed in them subsequently met him. nashaniva.com
Evidence Appearances
The descriptions below identify what each record contributes. Records tied to Victoria Housez as an individual are distinguished from documents that actually display the Mademoiselle Agency name.
| EFTA record | Description | What it does and does not establish |
|---|---|---|
| EFTA00917152: 2011 “new girlfriends” exchange | Epstein made a request to the correspondent identified in Novaya’s wider reporting. | Evidence of Epstein’s request to an individual; it does not name Mademoiselle as the party receiving an assignment. |
| EFTA00661254: question about assistant, casting, or escort work | The correspondent asked what kind of introduction Epstein sought. | Records the question; no answer is identified in the reviewed chain. |
| EFTA01137383: introduction describing a 19 year old Russian woman | The sender described a young woman as ready to travel. | An assertion within an email, not proof of travel or a meeting. |
| EFTA01862981: Epstein’s stated scouting age range | Epstein discussed a preference for ages 18 to 21. | Shows his stated preference; it does not independently verify ages or outcomes. |
| EFTA00911036: discussion of an agency plan | Epstein discussed demonstrating scouting ability instead of producing a business plan. | A proposed venture, not proof that a new company was established. |
| EFTA01865834: reply about scouting | The correspondent discussed scouting beyond ordinary model business. | Her stated idea, not proof that Mademoiselle adopted it. |
| EFTA00672325: report of a Mademoiselle visit | A visitor told Epstein they had been to the agency and asserted it was on sale. | A third party’s account; no sale or ownership interest is established. |
| EFTA01987612: dispute over photographs and resources | Epstein complained about results; the correspondent discussed needing support and a budget. | Evidence of their exchange, not agency authorization or accounting. |
| EFTA01891928: proposed collaboration with a scout | The correspondent discussed a Serbian scout and possible placements in several cities. | A proposed contact; no completed collaboration is established. |
| EFTA00594967: bank entry marked as a gift | Reporting identifies an approximately $2,000 entry associated with the individual correspondent. | It does not establish a payment to Mademoiselle or its purpose. |
| EFTA00659212: January 2013 Brazilian email, first production | Displays the stated age of 19 and five image filenames. | One version of a single email; the actual image files are not reproduced. |
| EFTA00952636: Brazilian email with agency signature | Displays Mademoiselle Agency and the historical Paris address. | A signature within a forwarded chain; the outer sender remains unidentified. |
| EFTA01187999: Brazilian email with additional signature details | Another production of the same introduction. | Does not identify every redacted person. |
| EFTA02706746: Brazilian email with damaged age text | Later version with a corrupted first digit in the age. | The clear overlapping copies say 19; it is not evidence of a nine year old. |
| EFTA00679247: February 2013 forwarded video chain | Contains a Victoria Housez and Mademoiselle signature and references video files. | Does not establish the contents of files unavailable for inspection. |
| EFTA00953461: Studio Tamara and Mademoiselle chain | Preserves modeling correspondence that was forwarded toward Epstein. | Does not show Studio Tamara knew of the forwarding or that a proposed model met Epstein. |
| EFTA00652499: March 2013 discussion of work and spending | Epstein and the individual correspondent disputed her results. | His account of spending cannot be attributed to Mademoiselle without further records. |
The January 17 email’s adjoining second pages also have separate Bates numbers: EFTA00659213, the second page of its first production, EFTA00952637, the second page of another production, EFTA01188000, the second page following EFTA01187999, and EFTA02706747, the second page following EFTA02706746. They do not turn the introduction into additional events or supply the missing five photographs. epsteinwiki.com
What Independent Sleuths Have Added
Ellie Leonard’s analysis of EFTA01187999 examined the redactions in the Brazilian email and proposed that its redacted sender might be Victoria Housez. That is an inference, not an identification printed in the released copy. Leonard also quoted the government’s explanation that the protected identity had been treated as a victim following a request through counsel. The redaction should not be defeated by guessing from the length of a black bar or from an agency signature. A person’s employment and potential victim status are not mutually exclusive. ellieleonard.substack.com
American Freakshow’s reporting on Housez and other Epstein correspondents adds substantial context on scouting proposals, compensation discussions, and Epstein’s demands. Its authors say they compared a large body of emails and signatures. That work strengthens the case for examining the individual correspondence over time, while leaving the distinct question of Mademoiselle’s corporate knowledge and decisions to documentary evidence. Uncovering the Epstein Network
What the Records Establish About the Agency
The strongest agency specific evidence is its name in email signatures, the historical Paris address, the reported 2012 visit, and the Studio Tamara business correspondence with a Mademoiselle contact. Together, those records show that the agency appeared in material that reached Epstein’s files and that at least one correspondent who used its identity communicated with him.
The records presented here do not establish Epstein’s ownership of Mademoiselle, a corporate payment from him, an instruction from its management to send prospective models to him, or management’s knowledge of every forwarded message. They also do not establish that every person described was represented by Mademoiselle, traveled, met Epstein, or experienced abuse as a consequence of these particular messages.
That distinction protects the accuracy of the investigation. Epstein’s own words about young women, the correspondent’s scouting discussions, and the forwarding of agency material all deserve documentation. Each person and organization should be assigned only the acts that the evidence supports.
Questions Still Unanswered
- What was Victoria Housez’s exact role at Mademoiselle Agency on the dates when she used its signature?
- Did agency managers know about, approve, or later discover her correspondence with Epstein?
- Who sent the outer January 17, 2013 Brazilian introduction, and who authored its forwarded portion?
- Did the person described in that email know that photographs were being circulated or consent to it?
- Where are the five JPG files and the video attachments referenced in the public email records?
- Did anyone discussed in the Studio Tamara chain travel to Paris or meet Epstein?
- What records, if any, document an actual offer to sell Mademoiselle after the visitor’s January 2012 remark?
- Were payments to the individual correspondent personal gifts, compensation for particular work, or something else? Are there records linking any payment to the company?
Related EpsteinWiki Pages
- EFTA02706746: Forwarded Email Describing a 19 Year Old Brazilian Person compares the four versions of the January 2013 message.
- Sleuth Report: Jean Luc Brunel’s Modeling Network provides broader modeling industry context. It does not establish Brunel’s participation in the Mademoiselle correspondence.
- Become an Epstein Sleuth explains how readers can contribute documented leads while protecting the privacy of people described in the records.
Source List
- Mademoiselle Agency, agency history and Models.com, Mademoiselle Agency profile.
- Novaya Gazeta Europe investigation, English translation preserved by RIMA — reporting on the individual correspondent, signatures, scouting emails, and bank entry.
- American Freakshow investigation by Nina Burleigh and Katie Chenoweth — examination of a wider body of Housez correspondence. Note: The preserved RIMA link in source 2 should use this working URL.
- EFTA00917152: “new girlfriends” exchange; EFTA00661254: question about the proposed role; EFTA01862981: age preference; EFTA01137383: Russian introduction.
- EFTA00911036: agency plan discussion; EFTA01865834: scouting reply; EFTA01987612: photographs and budget exchange; EFTA01891928: proposed scout collaboration; EFTA00652499: March 2013 work exchange; EFTA00594967: bank entry.
- EFTA00672325: January 2012 account of visiting Mademoiselle.
- EFTA00659212, EFTA00952636, EFTA01187999, and EFTA02706746 — overlapping productions of the Brazilian introduction; EpsteinWiki’s document comparison.
- EFTA00679247: February 2013 forwarded video email.
- EFTA00953461: Studio Tamara correspondence; Nasha Niva’s examination; Nasha Niva’s report of Tamara Goncharova’s response.
- Ellie Leonard, “Todd Blanche and the 10 Unredacted Files” — sleuth analysis of EFTA01187999 and an unconfirmed inference about its redacted sender.