Marc Rowan

UpdatedSeptember 15, 2026

ByEpsteinWiki

Snapshot

Marc Jeffrey Rowan is an American financier who cofounded Apollo Global Management with Leon Black and Josh Harris in 1990. He became Apollo’s chief executive officer in 2021 and is currently chief executive officer and chair of its board.

Rowan belongs in the EpsteinWiki knowledge base because records released by the United States Department of Justice document repeated contact between Rowan’s office and Jeffrey Epstein from 2013 through 2016. The records include planned breakfasts at Epstein’s Manhattan townhouse, direct call arrangements, an inquiry about Rowan’s private aircraft, introductions involving Nicholas Ribis and Perry Shwachman, and exchanges concerning Apollo tax and accounting matters.

The documents are especially important because every identified contact occurred after Epstein’s 2008 conviction. They also complicate Apollo’s public position that Rowan had no business or personal relationship with Epstein. Apollo acknowledges that Rowan and other employees gave Epstein information in select instances, but says that the information related only to Epstein’s tax work for Black and that Rowan rejected Epstein’s attempts to obtain other work.

The public record reviewed for this article does not establish that Rowan participated in Epstein’s sexual abuse or trafficking, knew about those crimes, paid Epstein, flew on Epstein’s aircraft, or visited Epstein’s islands. No survivor has publicly accused Rowan of abuse in the sources reviewed here. Rowan has not been criminally charged with conduct connected to Epstein.

The central unresolved issue is narrower. It concerns the full purpose and scope of Rowan’s documented contact with Epstein, and whether Apollo’s earlier public descriptions accurately conveyed that contact to investors.

Evidence assessment chart

Question	Current assessment	Basis
Is Rowan merely named in the files?	No	Scheduling records, direct emails, call arrangements, and financial discussions identify him as an active correspondent or meeting participant.
Did contact occur after Epstein’s conviction?	Yes	The documented period runs from 2013 through at least September 2016.
Do records place Rowan in a recurring appointment channel to Epstein’s townhouse?	Yes	Multiple assistant chains plan or confirm breakfasts and meetings at 9 East 71st Street.
Do records show Apollo specific financial discussion?	Yes	Emails concern an Apollo balance sheet liability, a tax receivable agreement calculation, a possible inversion, and family office tax materials.
Does the record prove a formal contract between Rowan and Epstein?	No	Apollo denies such a relationship, and the reviewed documents do not contain a signed Rowan Epstein engagement agreement.
Does the record show Rowan paid Epstein?	Not established	The documented $158 million payment relationship belongs to Leon Black and Black related entities, not Rowan.
Does the record connect Rowan to Epstein’s abuse?	Not established	The reviewed files and reporting contain no accusation that Rowan participated in or knew about Epstein’s sexual crimes.
Is there active litigation tied to Apollo’s disclosures?	Yes	Federal securities plaintiffs have sued Apollo, Rowan, and Black. The allegations remain unproven.

Research status: September 15, 2026

Identity and Career

Marc Jeffrey Rowan was born in 1962. He attended the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, earning a bachelor’s degree in 1984 and a master of business administration degree in finance in 1985. Apollo’s official biography states that he graduated summa cum laude.

Rowan began his finance career at Drexel Burnham Lambert. After Drexel collapsed, he joined former colleagues Leon Black and Josh Harris in founding Apollo in 1990. The three men built Apollo into one of the largest alternative asset managers in the world.

Apollo’s current governance page identifies Rowan as its cofounder, chief executive officer, board chair, executive officer, executive committee member, and leadership team member. It also identifies him as chair of the Wharton School Board of Advisors and lists leadership roles in several philanthropic and educational organizations.

Rowan succeeded Black as Apollo’s chief executive in 2021. That transition followed scrutiny of Black’s relationship with Epstein and Apollo’s release of an outside legal review. Rowan’s position therefore makes the accuracy of Apollo’s Epstein disclosures a matter of corporate governance, not only biography.

Career chart

Period	Role or event	Relevance to this article
1984 and 1985	Wharton bachelor’s and master of business administration degrees	Establishes Rowan’s education and long association with Penn.
Before 1990	Drexel Burnham Lambert	Shared professional origin of the three Apollo founders.
1990	Cofounded Apollo with Leon Black and Josh Harris	Places Rowan inside the leadership structure later reflected in Epstein related files.
2013 through 2016	Apollo cofounder and senior executive	Period covered by the strongest Rowan Epstein records.
2021	Became Apollo chief executive officer	Followed the Black Epstein review and Black’s departure.
2025	Became chair of Apollo’s board in addition to chief executive officer	Increased Rowan’s responsibility for current governance and disclosures.
2026	Named in federal securities litigation concerning Apollo’s Epstein statements	The claims concern investor disclosure and remain pending allegations.

Why Marc Rowan Appears in the Epstein Files

Rowan’s appearance is not limited to an address book, a photograph, or a third party name drop. The released corpus contains several distinct forms of evidence:

Scheduling messages between Rowan’s executive assistant and Epstein’s assistants
Messages from Leon Black’s office asking Rowan to contact Epstein
Direct replies attributed to Rowan
Meeting agenda and daily schedule entries
Apollo financial and tax discussions
A proposed aircraft transaction
Professional introductions
Corporate agreements and ownership records that name Rowan or his entities
A financial email from Epstein accountant Richard D. Kahn concerning Rowan’s stock transactions

Those categories have different evidentiary weight. A calendar entry proves that an event was planned, but it does not always prove that every invited person attended. A direct reply proves communication, but not a formal engagement. A copy of an Apollo agreement in Epstein’s files proves that Epstein or his operation possessed the document, but not that Rowan personally sent it.

The strongest conclusion is that Rowan’s channel to Epstein was active, repeated, and partly substantive. The current files do not answer every question about the purpose of that channel.

Evidence type chart

Evidence type	Examples	What it can establish	What it cannot establish alone
Scheduling	Breakfasts in 2013 and 2016	A planned time, place, and named participants	Attendance or the content of a meeting in every instance
Direct email	February and March 2016 replies	Personal communication and the words exchanged	A broader contract or criminal knowledge
Financial material	Apollo liability and tax receivable agreement calculations	Epstein received or requested firm specific information	Why it was shared or whether Epstein was formally retained by Apollo
Transaction inquiry	Proposed $18.9 million jet sale	Epstein explored a possible purchase from Rowan	That a sale to Epstein occurred
Introduction	Ribis and Shwachman threads	Rowan and Epstein used one another as professional connectors	That an introduced project was completed
Corporate records	Agreements naming Rowan, MJR Foundation, Black, and Harris	Epstein’s files held detailed Apollo structure records	That every person named knew Epstein held the copies
Third party monitoring	Kahn email about Rowan transactions	Epstein’s financial office tracked information about Rowan	A Rowan request, insider information, or unlawful trading

Documented Timeline of Contact

The following chart separates scheduled contact, direct correspondence, financial discussion, and later public or legal developments.

Date	Documented event	Evidence level
September 3, 2013	A record cited by the AFT and AAUP describes an apparent first meeting at Apollo’s offices.	Meeting evidence cited in a formal petition, but the underlying record should be read for its precise wording.
September 8, 2013	Assistants arranged an 8:00 a.m. meeting at Epstein’s Manhattan home.	Strong scheduling evidence.
October 21 and 22, 2013	Assistants discussed a breakfast involving Black, Harris, Rowan, and Epstein, plus whether Rowan would see Epstein one on one first.	Strong scheduling and confirmation evidence.
October 2013	Epstein’s office requested another meeting, but Rowan was traveling.	Attempted contact, not a completed meeting.
January 9, 2014	Black’s assistant said Black had asked Barry Cohen and Rowan to call Epstein about donor advised funds.	Strong evidence of a requested call. The file does not state whether the call occurred.
December 16, 2015	Black’s assistant told Epstein’s office that Rowan wanted to meet and would rearrange his schedule for an early January breakfast.	Strong evidence that the request came from Rowan’s side as relayed by Black’s assistant.
January 5 and 6, 2016	Rowan’s assistant reconfirmed an 8:00 a.m. breakfast at Epstein’s townhouse and said Rowan looked forward to seeing him. Epstein’s daily schedule listed the breakfast.	Strong evidence of a planned appointment and intended attendance.
January 11, 2016	Epstein requested a call. Rowan’s assistant said Rowan would contact him and asked which of several telephone numbers should be primary.	Strong call arrangement evidence.
January 12, 2016	Epstein’s office requested specifications for Rowan’s Gulfstream G450, offered at $18.9 million.	Strong transaction inquiry evidence. Reporting says the aircraft was sold to someone else.
January 14, 2016	A meeting was arranged at Epstein’s townhouse with Rowan, an Apollo colleague, Ariane de Rothschild, and Cynthia Tobiano. Rowan’s spokesperson said Epstein arranged it but did not attend.	Strong meeting evidence involving the venue and participants. Disputed only as to Epstein’s physical attendance, which Rowan’s spokesperson denied.
February 14, 2016	Epstein asked Rowan to speak by telephone. Rowan replied that he would call at 11:30.	Direct correspondence.
February 22, 2016	Epstein asked about a liability amount on Apollo’s balance sheet. Rowan replied that he was obtaining calculation details.	Direct, Apollo specific financial correspondence.
February 25, 2016	Epstein wrote that using Rothschild for an inversion allowed interesting structures. Rowan said his team was gathering information and that he had a call the next week.	Direct financial correspondence. The final purpose and outcome are unresolved.
March 4, 2016	Records concern a calculation for an Apollo tax receivable agreement.	Firm specific tax information. Apollo says information sharing concerned Black’s tax work.
March 18, 2016	Epstein facilitated an introduction between Rowan and Nicholas Ribis. Rowan said he had left a message and would reach Ribis that morning.	Direct introduction and follow through.
May 2016	Epstein sent Rowan a ValueWalk link concerning a parody about an investment presentation.	Direct but low significance communication.
August 12, 2016	Rowan reintroduced Perry Shwachman and Epstein. Shwachman sought discussion of possible new United States Virgin Islands insurance regulations.	Direct professional introduction. The file does not show a completed regulatory project.
September 2016	Brad Wechsler asked Apollo staff to keep Epstein copied on tax material for the family offices of the three founders because of Epstein’s substantive expertise.	Strong evidence that Epstein remained in an Apollo adjacent tax information channel. The extent of Rowan’s knowledge of each transmission is not fully established.
January 25, 2021	Apollo released the Dechert review, which said Apollo never retained Epstein and Epstein never invested in Apollo funds.	Corporate commissioned review and official company position.
January 30, 2026	The Justice Department released a large new collection of Epstein records.	Government publication event that enabled renewed scrutiny.
February 17, 2026	The AFT and AAUP asked the Securities and Exchange Commission to investigate Apollo’s disclosures.	Regulatory request and advocacy position, not an SEC finding.
February 18, 2026	Apollo told clients that Rowan had no business or personal relationship with Epstein, while acknowledging select information sharing tied to Black’s tax work.	Current official company position.
March and April 2026	Securities plaintiffs filed actions against Apollo, Rowan, and Black.	Pending civil allegations, not findings.

The 2013 Townhouse and Apollo Meetings

The earliest Rowan related material identified in current reporting dates to August and September 2013. A released email shows Epstein asking whether Rowan could make the morning of September 4. Rowan replied that he would be out of town. That exchange is evidence of direct communication, but it is not evidence of a completed meeting.

The next records are more concrete. EFTA00639470 concerns an apparent September 3 meeting at Apollo’s offices. EFTA00384871 arranges a September 8 meeting at Epstein’s home. The AFT and AAUP described the events as meetings in their February 2026 letter to the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Daily Pennsylvanian also reported that Rowan’s executive assistant coordinated the September 8 appointment for 8:00 a.m.

October records show a group channel involving the Apollo founders. EFTA00382241 discusses whether Rowan would arrive early for a one on one conversation before a broader meeting. EFTA00380907 and EFTA00382067 concern a breakfast involving Black, Harris, Rowan, and Epstein at the townhouse.

These records matter for three reasons.

First, Epstein had already pleaded guilty in Florida in 2008 to offenses involving solicitation and a minor. This was not contact before his criminal history became public.

Second, the messages use Rowan’s own office and named executive assistant. They are not merely Epstein claiming access to him.

Third, the planned setting was repeatedly Epstein’s private Manhattan residence. That fact does not prove criminal conduct, but it demonstrates a level of access greater than a stray professional introduction.

The records do not preserve a transcript of the breakfasts. They therefore cannot establish what Rowan knew, what was discussed, or whether every planned meeting occurred exactly as scheduled.

Donor Advised Funds and the Black Tax Channel

EFTA01938699 records a January 9, 2014 message from Leon Black’s assistant. She told Epstein’s office that Black had asked Barry Cohen and Marc Rowan to call Epstein about donor advised funds. Duplicate or related copies include EFTA00376154, EFTA02405147, and EFTA00717483.

A donor advised fund is a charitable giving account administered by a sponsoring organization. The account holder can recommend grants while the sponsoring organization exercises legal control over contributed assets. Such funds can intersect with tax planning, philanthropy, and estate strategy.

The file establishes that Black wanted Rowan and Cohen to contact Epstein on this subject. It does not show the content or duration of any resulting call. It also does not identify a payment from Rowan to Epstein.

This episode fits Apollo’s stated explanation better than some later exchanges do. Apollo says Rowan’s information sharing concerned Epstein’s tax work for Black. A call requested by Black about a philanthropic vehicle could fall within that description. Still, the record demonstrates that Rowan was not insulated from Epstein. Black’s office treated him as someone who could be brought into Epstein related tax or philanthropic work.

The January 2016 Breakfast

Contact resumed visibly in December 2015. EFTA02064388 and EFTA02066268 contain a message from Black’s assistant stating that Rowan wanted to meet Epstein. The assistant said Rowan would move things around and come to Epstein, and that an early breakfast worked for him.

On January 5, 2016, EFTA02065563 reconfirmed that Rowan would come to Epstein’s home for breakfast at 8:00 a.m. the next day. Rowan’s assistant said he was looking forward to seeing Epstein. EFTA02065155 placed the breakfast on Epstein’s January 6 daily schedule. Another related record is EFTA00332446.

The combined chain is stronger than a single calendar entry. It contains a request relayed from Rowan’s side, negotiation over dates, reconfirmation by Rowan’s assistant, and an entry on Epstein’s schedule. It is reasonable to describe this as a documented breakfast appointment. The files do not provide a transcript or independent visitor log proving the minute of arrival and departure.

This distinction is essential. The documents establish direct access and intent to meet. They do not establish complicity in Epstein’s crimes.

Telephone Access and Epstein’s Island Numbers

On January 11, 2016, Epstein’s assistant asked to arrange a call with Rowan. Rowan’s assistant responded that he would reach out that evening if he had not already done so. She then asked Epstein’s office to identify the primary telephone number from several entries already held by Rowan’s office.

Epstein’s assistant explained that one number was an island telephone and another was the island office for Southern Trust Company. The exchange shows that Rowan’s office possessed several ways to reach Epstein and was maintaining the contact information needed for direct communication.

This record does not show that Rowan traveled to an island. A telephone number labeled as an island number is evidence about communications infrastructure, not travel. Conflating the two would overstate the record.

EFTA01742280 provides a separate and more direct example from February 14, 2016. Epstein proposed a call and supplied a Palm Beach number. Rowan answered that he would call at 11:30. This is direct correspondence attributed to Rowan rather than assistant only scheduling.

The Proposed Gulfstream Sale

On January 12, 2016, Epstein’s assistant asked Rowan’s office for details about an aircraft Rowan was selling. EFTA00332093 includes the request for operating hours, photographs, and other information. Rowan’s assistant brought in James Hagerty of Hagerty Jet Group, who described the Gulfstream G450 and quoted an asking price of $18.9 million.

The Philadelphia Inquirer and Bloomberg reported that Epstein considered purchasing the aircraft. The Inquirer reported that the plane was ultimately sold to another buyer.

Aircraft transaction chart

Element	Established	Not established
Aircraft	Gulfstream G450 offered through Hagerty Jet Group	That Epstein ever controlled or used it
Asking price	$18.9 million	A final negotiated price with Epstein
Information flow	Epstein’s office received specifications through Rowan’s office and the broker	That Rowan personally negotiated with Epstein
Outcome	Reporting says the aircraft went to another buyer	A completed Rowan Epstein sale

The proposed sale is relevant because it was a potential transaction directly involving property owned by Rowan. It does not prove that a transaction closed, and it must not be described as money paid by or to Epstein.

The Rothschild Meeting and Possible Inversion

Records from January through March 2016 connect Rowan, Epstein, and representatives of Edmond de Rothschild to discussions about financial structures.

EFTA00331035 reconfirms a January 14 meeting at Epstein’s Manhattan townhouse. It names Rowan, an Apollo colleague identified as Imran, Ariane de Rothschild, and Cynthia Tobiano. Related scheduling records include EFTA00331937, EFTA00331939, and EFTA00331945.

Rowan’s spokesperson told the Daily Pennsylvanian that Epstein arranged the meeting with the chief executive of Edmond de Rothschild but did not attend it. That response is important. The townhouse venue and Epstein’s role in arranging the meeting are documented, but Epstein’s physical attendance is denied by Rowan’s representative.

An agenda style record, EFTA00305994, contains references to Athene, Montauk, Rothschild, planes, and boats. The AFT and AAUP suggested that the note probably reflected subjects connected to the January meeting. The document does not itself prove that every listed subject was discussed with Rowan.

By February 25, the correspondence had become substantive. In EFTA00833332, Epstein wrote that using Rothschild for an inversion allowed interesting structures. Rowan replied that information was being gathered and that he had a call planned the following week. EFTA00833334 continues the thread and refers to follow up involving Cynthia Tobiano and Gernot Lohr.

The Financial Times reported that Apollo executives, including Rowan, held discussions with Epstein about Apollo tax arrangements and a possible inversion. An inversion generally means reorganizing a corporate structure so that a parent entity is domiciled in another jurisdiction, often with tax consequences. The available record does not establish that Apollo completed an inversion proposed by Epstein or paid him a success fee.

EFTA02351953 adds another link. Apollo executive Sanjay Patel told Epstein that Rowan had asked him to follow up on Rothschild conversations involving Epstein and Black. Related copies include EFTA02714922 and EFTA02506999.

Competing interpretations chart

Issue	Apollo’s explanation	Documentary concern	Current conclusion
Why Rowan supplied information	Select information was provided for Epstein’s tax work for Black	Some messages refer directly to Apollo balance sheet and tax structure questions	The files show firm specific content, but do not fully resolve whose tax work each exchange served.
Whether Epstein worked for Apollo	Apollo says it never retained him	Epstein arranged meetings, requested calculations, and discussed structures	Access and substantive discussion are established. A formal Apollo engagement is not.
Whether Rowan sought Epstein’s services	Apollo says Epstein’s approaches to other founders were declined	A December 2015 message says Rowan wanted to meet, and later records show direct follow up	The record shows Rowan sought at least some contact. It does not prove he hired Epstein.
Whether the Rothschild project advanced	Apollo has not identified a completed Epstein engagement	Messages show information gathering and follow up	Discussion progressed beyond a casual introduction, but the final outcome is unresolved.

Apollo Balance Sheet and Tax Receivable Agreement Exchanges

EFTA02350757 contains a February 22, 2016 exchange in which Epstein asked Rowan about a liability amount on Apollo’s balance sheet and how it was calculated. Rowan replied that the assets and liabilities reflected what had been created to date and that he was getting the details of the calculation.

This is one of the most probative Rowan records because it is direct and firm specific. It is not merely an appointment request. Epstein asked a question about Apollo’s numbers, and Rowan responded that he was obtaining an explanation.

Records cited as EFTA00645429 concern an Apollo tax receivable agreement calculation. The AFT and AAUP interpreted them as showing Rowan seeking Epstein’s advice. The Financial Times reported that Rowan forwarded Epstein a detailed internal calculation. Apollo responds that select information was shared in connection with Black’s tax work.

A tax receivable agreement can require a public company to share certain tax benefits with preexisting owners after a corporate restructuring. In Apollo’s case, the subject could affect founders and their family offices as well as the company’s reported liabilities. That overlap makes the boundary between Black’s personal tax work and Apollo corporate information especially important.

The records establish that Epstein had access to sensitive Apollo related tax and accounting material. They do not, standing alone, establish who authorized every transmission, whether the information was confidential under a specific agreement, or whether Apollo paid Epstein.

Family Office Materials and Brad Wechsler

EFTA00816834 concerns a September 2016 request by Brad Wechsler, who led Black’s family office. Reuters reported that Wechsler asked Apollo personnel to keep Epstein copied on tax materials connected to the family offices of all three Apollo founders, including Rowan, because of Epstein’s substantive expertise.

This document supports a more precise description than either extreme.

It does not necessarily mean Apollo retained Epstein as a corporate adviser. The materials could relate to personal family office tax consequences flowing from Apollo structures. At the same time, it shows Epstein was treated as a knowledgeable participant who should receive information touching Rowan’s family office interests.

That is more substantial than Epstein merely trying and failing to gain access. It is also narrower than proof that Rowan entered a paid personal engagement with him.

Professional Introductions

Nicholas Ribis

In March 2016, Epstein introduced Rowan to Nicholas Ribis, a casino executive with past ties to Donald Trump’s resort business. EFTA00831377 shows Epstein telling Rowan he had spoken to Ribis and forwarded a telephone number. EFTA00831381 shows Rowan saying he had left a message and would reach Ribis that morning. Other related records include EFTA00670611, EFTA00831384, and EFTA02371423.

The exchange proves that Epstein acted as a connector and that Rowan followed up. It does not establish that the introduction produced a transaction or appointment.

Perry Shwachman and United States Virgin Islands insurance regulation

In August 2016, Rowan introduced or reintroduced attorney Perry Shwachman to Epstein. EFTA00820365, page 3 shows Rowan writing that the two men should speak directly after an earlier matter identified as Liquid Funding. Shwachman then told Epstein that he wanted to discuss help concerning potential new insurance regulations in the United States Virgin Islands. Related records include EFTA00679139, page 2, EFTA02361689, and EFTA02454291.

This thread is relevant because Epstein operated Southern Trust Company in the Virgin Islands and received tax benefits there. The email does not establish that Rowan designed the regulations, that the proposal was adopted, or that any regulatory change facilitated criminal activity.

ValueWalk message

EFTA02462819 shows Epstein sending Rowan a ValueWalk link in May 2016. The link appears to have concerned a parody video about an investment presentation. It is evidence of continuing direct contact, but it carries little independent weight compared with the tax and meeting records.

Apollo Structural Documents in Epstein’s Files

Several released documents contain detailed Apollo agreements naming Rowan, Black, Harris, personal entities, and ownership structures. EFTA00623298 is a July 13, 2007 Agreement Among Principals. It names the founders and related entities, including MJR Foundation LLC. A related copy appears as EFTA00797433. Other records include shareholder and partnership agreements such as EFTA01121162 and later drafts such as EFTA00583332.

The presence of these documents is relevant to understanding what Epstein’s financial operation could review while advising Black. Their contents map founder ownership, governance, and contractual relationships that could affect tax and estate planning.

The records must be handled carefully. They may include private addresses, signatures, and personal entity information. This article does not reproduce unnecessary personal data.

Most importantly, possession is not attribution. A document in Epstein’s files does not prove Rowan sent it, knew Epstein possessed it, or approved its use. The corporate records are context for Epstein’s access to Apollo structure, not evidence of sexual misconduct.

Corporate document chart

Record	General content	Responsible interpretation
EFTA00623298	2007 agreement among Apollo principals and related entities	Shows Epstein’s files contained detailed founder structure material.
EFTA00797433	Related or duplicate principal agreement	Corroborates possession, not a separate event.
EFTA01121162	Shareholder agreement material	Provides ownership and governance context.
EFTA00583332	Later amended draft material	Shows continued presence of Apollo structure documents in the corpus.

Richard Kahn’s Monitoring of Rowan Transactions

EFTA01731997 is a financial email involving Epstein accountant Richard D. Kahn. The record indicates that Kahn tracked and communicated information concerning Rowan’s Apollo stock transactions to Epstein.

This matters because it shows Epstein’s financial office monitoring Rowan as an economic actor. It may also help explain why Epstein maintained interest in Apollo founder ownership and tax structures.

The document does not establish that Rowan asked Kahn to monitor the transactions. It does not establish that the information was nonpublic, that Rowan knew Epstein received it, or that anyone traded unlawfully. Further investigation should determine the source of the information, its timing relative to public filings, and whether it matched public Form 4 disclosures.

Sleuth Kait Justice highlighted this record in research concerning Epstein, Kahn, Apollo, and Rowan. That work is valuable as a lead and interpretive framework. The EFTA record remains the primary evidence.

Leon Black’s $158 Million Relationship With Epstein

Rowan’s story cannot be understood without Black’s far larger financial relationship with Epstein. Apollo’s 2021 Dechert review reported that Black paid Epstein $158 million from 2012 through 2017 for tax, estate planning, philanthropic, and family office services. The review said Apollo never retained Epstein, Epstein never invested in Apollo managed funds, and Dechert found no evidence that Black participated in Epstein’s criminal activity.

The Dechert review examined more than 60,000 communications and interviewed more than twenty people. It was commissioned by an Apollo board committee after Black requested a review. It is therefore a substantial source, but it is also a company commissioned investigation rather than a court judgment or government prosecution report.

The Senate Finance Committee later questioned the size, substantiation, and tax treatment of Black’s payments. Those inquiries concern Black and related structures. They should not be reassigned to Rowan without evidence.

Money chart

Amount	Documented context	Connection to Rowan	Limitation
$158 million	Dechert reported payments from Black and his family office to Epstein from 2012 through 2017	Rowan was Black’s Apollo partner and appears in related tax information channels	This was not reported as money paid by Rowan.
$10 million	EFTA01927911 records two incoming wires from Black related sources	Shows the scale of the Black Epstein financial channel surrounding Apollo founder tax matters	Does not identify Rowan as sender or recipient.
$18.9 million	Asking price for Rowan’s Gulfstream G450	Potential direct asset transaction	Reporting says Epstein did not buy the plane.
Unspecified	Possible Apollo inversion, Rothschild structures, and tax receivable agreement work	Rowan participated in discussions or information sharing	No reviewed record establishes an Epstein fee from Rowan or Apollo.

The correct conclusion is not that Rowan paid Epstein $158 million. The correct conclusion is that Rowan’s documented communications occurred inside a business environment where his cofounder was paying Epstein extraordinary sums for financial advice.

Apollo’s 2021 Dechert Review

Apollo announced the Dechert findings on January 25, 2021. The company said:

Apollo never retained Epstein for services.
Epstein never invested in Apollo managed funds.
Epstein advised Black on taxes, trusts, estates, philanthropy, and family office operations.
Black’s fees were for legitimate services and were intended to reflect value delivered.
Dechert found no evidence that Black participated in Epstein’s crimes.

The review also addressed Epstein’s outreach to Rowan and Harris. Reuters later summarized the report as finding that no Apollo employee other than Black seriously considered hiring Epstein.

The 2026 document release created a disclosure problem because it illuminated conduct that readers could reasonably view as more extensive than failed outreach. Rowan’s office repeatedly scheduled contact. Rowan replied directly. Epstein asked about Apollo numbers. Rowan obtained calculation details. Epstein arranged the Rothschild channel. Apollo personnel kept him copied because of his tax expertise.

None of those facts automatically disproves the narrow legal proposition that Apollo never formally retained Epstein. They do, however, create a reasonable question about how broadly ordinary investors would understand the phrase that Apollo never did business with him.

Apollo’s 2026 Response

On February 18, 2026, Apollo sent clients and partners a new letter. It stated that neither Rowan nor anyone else at Apollo, apart from Black, had a business or personal relationship with Epstein. It acknowledged that Rowan and other Apollo employees provided information to Epstein in select instances in connection with Epstein’s tax work for Black. It also said Epstein sought work with Apollo’s other cofounders and was declined each time.

That response is the clearest current statement of Apollo’s position.

Public statement versus record chart

Apollo statement	Record that supports it	Record that complicates it
Rowan did not have a formal business or personal relationship with Epstein	No signed engagement agreement or payment from Rowan has been identified in the reviewed sources	Repeated meetings, direct calls, an aircraft inquiry, introductions, and financial exchanges show more than a single incidental contact.
Information sharing concerned Black’s tax work	Donor advised fund and family office records connect Rowan’s involvement to Black initiated tax or philanthropic matters	Apollo balance sheet, inversion, tax receivable agreement, and Rowan family office material can appear broader without fuller context.
Epstein’s efforts to work for Rowan were declined	The Dechert review says no other Apollo employee seriously considered hiring him	Rowan’s side sought at least one meeting, followed introductions, and engaged with Epstein’s substantive financial questions.
The 2026 files added nothing new from Apollo’s perspective	Dechert had access to a large body of internal communications	The public did not previously have the same ability to inspect and compare the individual exchanges.

Rowan also said at a March 2026 Bloomberg event that he disliked Epstein and that Epstein had wasted his time. That statement expresses Rowan’s retrospective view. It does not erase the documentary record, and the documentary record does not prove that Rowan liked or trusted Epstein.

Union Request for an SEC Investigation

On February 17, 2026, the American Federation of Teachers and the American Association of University Professors sent a three page letter to the Securities and Exchange Commission. They argued that Apollo’s investor communications gave an incomplete or inaccurate picture of Epstein’s connections to the firm and its founders. They asked the Commission to investigate.

The letter listed thirteen Rowan related examples, including the 2013 meetings, donor advised funds, the 2016 breakfast, the aircraft inquiry, Rothschild and inversion discussions, a tax receivable agreement calculation, the Ribis introduction, and family office materials.

The unions expressly said they were not taking a position on whether Apollo’s statements were legally false or misleading. Their request is advocacy directed to a regulator. It is not proof that the Securities and Exchange Commission opened an enforcement case, reached a conclusion, or charged Rowan.

The request nevertheless matters because pension funds and workers are major clients of private capital firms. Disclosure about leadership contacts can affect how trustees evaluate reputational, governance, and investment risk.

Federal Securities Litigation

On March 2, 2026, Solomon Feldman filed a proposed securities class action in the Southern District of New York against Apollo, Rowan, and Black. Richard Perez filed a related action on April 29. The public Feldman docket now lists both plaintiffs and several pension fund lead plaintiff applicants.

The complaints allege that defendants misled shareholders through statements in 2021 and 2022 that Apollo never did business with Epstein. Reuters reported that the proposed class period covers nearly five years and that plaintiffs tied a February share decline to the new disclosures.

Apollo’s first quarter 2026 filing identified both cases, stated that lead plaintiff motions were pending, and said the company intended to defend vigorously. Later docket activity placed the related plaintiffs and applicants in the Feldman matter. Readers should consult the current docket for any order entered after the research date of this article.

Litigation status chart

Matter	Court	Core allegation	Status and limit
Feldman v. Apollo Global Management, Inc., No. 1:26 cv 01692	United States District Court, Southern District of New York	Apollo, Rowan, and Black allegedly made materially misleading statements about Epstein related business contacts	Pending civil case. Allegations are not findings.
Perez v. Apollo Global Management, Inc., No. 1:26 cv 03550	United States District Court, Southern District of New York	Related federal securities claims	Filed as related and reflected in the main docket. No merits judgment identified in reviewed sources.

These cases concern securities disclosure. They do not accuse Rowan of participating in Epstein’s sexual abuse or trafficking.

Relationship Map

Person or organization	Documented connection to Rowan in this record	Evidentiary significance
Jeffrey Epstein	Meetings, calls, direct emails, financial questions, transaction inquiry, and introductions	Central relationship under review. Contact is established; its full scope is disputed.
Leon Black	Apollo cofounder who paid Epstein $158 million and brought Rowan into some tax or philanthropic discussions	Primary reason Apollo says Rowan shared information with Epstein.
Josh Harris	Apollo cofounder named in a planned 2013 group breakfast	Shows contact extended across Apollo’s founding group. Harris must be assessed on his own record.
Elizabeth Irene	Rowan’s executive assistant who coordinated appointments and calls	Provides a reliable administrative trail between the two offices.
Lesley Groff	Epstein assistant who coordinated Rowan scheduling and the aircraft inquiry	Counterpart to Rowan’s office in the appointment channel.
Melanie Spinella	Black assistant who relayed that Rowan wanted to meet and that Black wanted him to call Epstein	Connects the Black channel to Rowan’s contact.
Brad Wechsler	Black family office executive who asked Apollo staff to copy Epstein on founder family office tax materials	Shows Epstein’s continued role in tax information flow.
Ariane de Rothschild	Participated in or was scheduled for the January 2016 townhouse meeting	Key person in the Rothschild and possible inversion discussion.
Cynthia Tobiano	Participated in Rothschild related scheduling and follow up	Operational connection in the proposed financial structure.
Imran Siddiqui	Apollo colleague identified by reporting as the possible “Imran” who accompanied Rowan	Apollo participant in the January 2016 meeting. Identity should be confirmed against the original record.
Sanjay Patel	Apollo executive who followed up with Epstein on Rothschild conversations at Rowan’s request	Evidence that the discussion circulated within Apollo.
Nicholas Ribis	Executive whom Epstein introduced to Rowan	Shows Epstein functioning as a professional connector.
Perry Shwachman	Attorney whom Rowan connected with Epstein regarding possible Virgin Islands insurance regulation	Shows Rowan also supplied a contact to Epstein.
Richard D. Kahn	Epstein accountant who reported information about Rowan stock transactions	Shows Epstein’s financial office monitored Rowan related activity.

What the Record Establishes

The available documents support the following conclusions:

Rowan and his office had repeated contact with Epstein’s office from 2013 through 2016.
The contact occurred years after Epstein’s 2008 conviction.
Multiple records scheduled Rowan for meetings or breakfasts at Epstein’s Manhattan townhouse.
Rowan directly replied to Epstein in at least some 2016 exchanges.
Epstein inquired about buying Rowan’s Gulfstream G450, but reporting says it was sold to another buyer.
Epstein arranged a meeting involving Rowan and Edmond de Rothschild representatives.
Rowan and Epstein discussed Apollo related liabilities, tax calculations, and possible structures.
Rowan followed an introduction from Epstein to Nicholas Ribis.
Rowan connected Perry Shwachman with Epstein for a discussion involving possible Virgin Islands insurance regulations.
Epstein’s files contained detailed Apollo agreements naming Rowan and related entities.
Epstein’s accountant tracked information concerning Rowan’s Apollo stock transactions.
Apollo acknowledges select information sharing by Rowan but says it related to Black’s tax work.
Apollo’s disclosures are the subject of a union request for regulatory review and pending securities litigation.

What the Record Does Not Establish

The reviewed record does not establish:

That Rowan participated in Epstein’s sexual abuse or trafficking.
That Rowan knew Epstein continued abusing girls or women after his conviction.
That a survivor accused Rowan of sexual misconduct.
That Rowan visited Little Saint James, Great Saint James, or any other Epstein island.
That Rowan flew on Epstein’s aircraft.
That Rowan paid Epstein any portion of Black’s $158 million.
That Epstein purchased Rowan’s aircraft.
That Apollo executed a corporate inversion proposed by Epstein.
That every meeting appearing in a calendar or assistant chain occurred.
That possession of an Apollo document proves Rowan sent it.
That Kahn’s monitoring involved inside information or unlawful trading.
That the Securities and Exchange Commission has found Apollo or Rowan violated securities law.
That the federal securities plaintiffs have proven their allegations.

These limits are not technicalities. They are the difference between evidence based reporting and guilt by association.

Survivor Centered Context

The purpose of mapping elite financial contact is accountability, not spectacle. Epstein’s ability to continue operating after his conviction depended in part on social legitimacy, professional access, money, institutions, and people willing to keep taking his calls.

Rowan’s records are relevant because they document how a convicted sex offender remained welcome in high level financial conversations. Meetings were arranged at his home. Senior executives answered his questions. Corporate and family office information reached him. He made introductions and received them.

That institutional access helped preserve Epstein’s image as a sophisticated adviser long after the public record should have triggered serious caution. The documents do not show Rowan participating in abuse. They do show the type of elite normalization that survivors and journalists have repeatedly identified as part of the environment surrounding Epstein.

Coverage should keep the hierarchy of harm clear. Epstein’s victims and survivors suffered sexual exploitation and years of institutional failure. Investor losses, reputational damage, and corporate disclosure disputes matter, but they are not equivalent to that harm.

Evidence Appearances

The list below prioritizes records that add distinct information. Duplicate copies are grouped where useful.

Record	Date or period	What it shows	What it does not prove
EFTA00639470	September 2013	Apparent early Apollo office meeting involving Rowan and Epstein	Complete content of the meeting
EFTA00384871	September 8, 2013	Morning meeting arranged at Epstein’s townhouse	A transcript or independent entry log
EFTA00382241	September and October 2013	Discussion of Rowan seeing Epstein one on one before a group meeting	What the proposed private discussion concerned
EFTA00380907 and EFTA00382067	October 21 and 22, 2013	Breakfast planning involving Black, Harris, Rowan, and Epstein	That every named participant attended
EFTA01938699 and EFTA00376154	January 9, 2014	Black asked Rowan and Barry Cohen to call Epstein about donor advised funds	Whether a call occurred or whether Rowan retained Epstein
EFTA02064388 and EFTA02066268	December 16, 2015	Black’s assistant said Rowan wanted to meet Epstein and would rearrange his schedule	The eventual conversation content
EFTA02065563, EFTA02065155, and EFTA00332446	January 5 and 6, 2016	Breakfast reconfirmation, Rowan’s anticipated attendance, and Epstein’s daily schedule	A recording or transcript of the breakfast
EFTA00332093	January 12, 2016	Epstein requested details about Rowan’s $18.9 million Gulfstream	That Epstein bought it
EFTA00331035	January 14, 2016	Rowan, an Apollo colleague, and Rothschild representatives scheduled at Epstein’s townhouse	Epstein’s attendance, which Rowan’s spokesperson denied
EFTA00305994	January 2016 context	Agenda style references to Athene, Montauk, Rothschild, planes, and boats	That every item was discussed with Rowan
EFTA01742280	February 14, 2016	Direct call arrangement and Rowan reply	Subject or length of the call
EFTA02350757	February 22, 2016	Epstein asked Rowan about an Apollo balance sheet liability and Rowan replied	Whether the exchange fell inside Black’s tax engagement
EFTA00833332 and EFTA00833334	February 25, 2016	Rothschild and inversion discussion with Rowan follow up	A completed transaction or Epstein fee
EFTA00645429	March 4, 2016	Apollo tax receivable agreement calculation material	Who authorized every disclosure or why it was sent
EFTA00831377, EFTA00831381, and EFTA00831384	March 2016	Epstein’s Ribis introduction and Rowan’s attempted follow up	A resulting appointment or deal
EFTA02351953	2016	Sanjay Patel told Epstein that Rowan requested follow up on Rothschild conversations	The final purpose or outcome
EFTA02462819	May 2016	Epstein sent Rowan an investment related parody link	A substantive advisory relationship
EFTA00820365, page 3	August 12, 2016	Rowan connected Shwachman and Epstein regarding possible Virgin Islands insurance regulation	Adoption of a proposal or unlawful purpose
EFTA00816834	September 2016	Request to keep Epstein copied on founder family office tax materials because of his expertise	Rowan’s knowledge of every message or a formal Apollo contract
EFTA00623298	July 13, 2007 agreement found in later production	Detailed Apollo principal structure naming Rowan and related entities	That Rowan personally supplied the copy to Epstein
EFTA01731997	Postconviction financial network period	Kahn monitored or reported Rowan stock transactions to Epstein	Rowan’s knowledge, inside information, or illegal trading

Investigative Questions

Which scheduled breakfasts and meetings did Rowan attend, and are there visitor logs, car records, expense records, or contemporaneous notes that confirm attendance?
What was discussed at the September and October 2013 appointments?
What did Rowan and Epstein discuss during the January 6, 2016 breakfast?
Was every Rowan Epstein exchange reviewed by Dechert, and how did the firm classify each one?
Did Dechert interview Rowan under conditions that required complete production of personal and business communications?
Which Apollo records were provided to Epstein, by whom, and under what authorization?
Did Apollo or any founder family office maintain an engagement letter, confidentiality agreement, invoice, or success fee proposal involving Epstein?
How did Apollo distinguish Black’s personal tax work from corporate Apollo matters when the same structures affected founder family offices and company liabilities?
What Apollo balance sheet liability was discussed in EFTA02350757?
What tax receivable agreement calculation was sent in EFTA00645429, and why did Epstein receive it?
What inversion structure did Epstein propose, and did Apollo, Athene, Edmond de Rothschild, or any founder family office pursue any part of it?
What was Sanjay Patel asked to advance in the Rothschild conversations?
Did Epstein request or expect compensation for the Rothschild or inversion work?
What information about Rowan’s stock transactions did Richard Kahn send Epstein, and was it already public?
Did Rowan know that Epstein’s financial office was tracking his transactions?
What was the purpose of the proposed Shwachman conversation about Virgin Islands insurance regulation?
Did any proposal arising from that conversation reach Virgin Islands officials or become draft legislation or regulation?
What did Apollo’s board know about Rowan’s contacts when it approved the 2021 public statements?
Has the Securities and Exchange Commission opened any inquiry in response to the AFT and AAUP letter?
What additional discovery, if any, will become public in the federal securities litigation?

Source List

Primary records and official sources

United States Department of Justice Epstein Library
Apollo official biography of Marc Rowan
Apollo, January 25, 2021 announcement of the Dechert review
Apollo, February 18, 2026 letter to clients and partners
AFT and AAUP, February 17, 2026 letter requesting SEC review
Apollo first quarter 2026 litigation disclosure filed with the SEC
Feldman v. Apollo public docket
Perez v. Apollo public docket
EFTA records linked individually in the Evidence Appearances section

Reporting

Independent research and sleuth analysis

Independent investigations and Substack reporting can provide leads, context, and interpretations. Claims drawn from them should be verified against primary records before publication.

PostedMarch 26, 2026