Sleuth Report: The Darren Indyke Money Trail with Cash Withdrawals, Trust Accounts, Epstein Entities, and Michelle Saipher’s Financial Links
Darren K. Indyke was not simply an outside lawyer whose name occasionally appeared on Jeffrey Epstein’s legal correspondence. The Epstein Files Transparency Act records show Indyke acting as an attorney, authorized signer, power of attorney holder, trustee, corporate representative, financial intermediary, and eventual coexecutor of Epstein’s estate.
The records document his authority over bank accounts containing tens of millions of dollars. They show repeated cash withdrawals that drew anti money laundering scrutiny. They also identify more than $14.6 million moving into his law firm trust account during the months surrounding Epstein’s 2019 arrest and death.
A separate set of records connects Indyke’s wife, Michelle Fern Saipher, to Epstein related companies, trusts, real estate arrangements, joint bank transfers, and a documented $1.825 million payment from an Epstein account.
These records do not establish that Darren Indyke or Michelle Saipher was criminally convicted of money laundering, structuring, trafficking, or participation in Epstein’s abuse. They do establish a financial relationship that was far more extensive than routine legal representation.
The central investigative question is whether the accounts, trusts, companies, cash withdrawals, loans, property transactions, and lawyer trust accounts were used only for legitimate legal and financial purposes or whether parts of that machinery helped finance, conceal, protect, or preserve Epstein’s operation.
Key Takeaways
Darren Indyke received broad individual authority over numerous Epstein related bank accounts.
Bank records place him as signer or power of attorney across Epstein companies, trusts, aviation entities, foundations, and financial structures.
The attorney identified across multiple sources as Indyke made 97 cash withdrawals of $7,500 and withdrew more than $800,000 for Epstein over approximately four years.
Bank personnel confronted the attorney because the withdrawal pattern appeared to resemble structuring.
A Darren K. Indyke PLLC lawyer trust account reportedly received three wires totaling $14,657,830 during 2019.
Indyke was named as a trustee on a Haze Trust account holding approximately $40.61 million in visible positions.
Separate records describe a $23 million transfer from Southern Trust Company to the Haze Trust.
Michelle Saipher received a documented $1.825 million payment from an Epstein account on May 16, 2014.
Five days later, records show three transfers involving a joint Darren and Michelle account totaling $1.823 million.
Epstein’s trust documents repeatedly contained a conditional provision of up to $3 million for Michelle in connection with KCAC LLC and a residential real estate transaction.
Corporate records show that Michelle held an ownership interest in KCAC LLC with Epstein and was later described as the company’s sole member.
These findings warrant a transaction level forensic accounting. They do not, without additional evidence, prove money laundering.
Indyke Was a Financial Gatekeeper, Not Merely a Lawyer
A Deutsche Bank power of attorney record identifies Darren Indyke as agent and attorney in fact over at least ten Epstein related brokerage accounts. The authorization stated that he could act individually.
That authority reportedly included the ability to request account information, issue transaction instructions, direct trades, and conduct other account activity permitted by the agreement.
Related versions of the authorization appear in EFTA01283104 and EFTA01253026. Those records may contain overlapping account information and should not automatically be counted as three independent grants of power without comparing the account numbers and signature pages.
A separate Deutsche Bank customer review lists Indyke as a signer or power of attorney for multiple Epstein related companies and trusts. Additional entity roles appear in EFTA01363465.
The structures connected to Indyke included Southern Financial LLC, Southern Trust Company Inc., Hyperion Air LLC, Plan D LLC, JEGE entities, NES LLC, Neptune LLC, the Butterfly Trust, Gratitude America, and other Epstein controlled organizations.
A JEGE power of attorney record provides another direct example of Indyke’s formal authority.
These documents do not prove that Indyke personally initiated every transaction. They do prove that he possessed the legal ability to act across a large portion of Epstein’s financial network.
The Ninety Seven Cash Withdrawals
One of the strongest financial warning signs appears in the New York Department of Financial Services consent order preserved as EFTA00151495.
The order describes Epstein’s personal attorney as Attorney 1. It reports that the attorney made 97 third party cash withdrawals between 2013 and 2017.
Most withdrawals were for $7,500. The order explains that $7,500 was Deutsche Bank’s limit for a withdrawal made by an authorized person who was not the primary account holder.
The attorney reportedly said Epstein needed the cash for travel, tipping, household costs, and expenses. However, the pattern eventually caused concern inside the bank.
In 2014, the attorney asked bank personnel how frequently cash could be withdrawn without creating an alert. A bank employee documented the inquiry and asked compliance whether the attorney could make withdrawals once a week, twice a week, or once every other week without triggering the monitoring system.
In 2017, the attorney asked whether a withdrawal exceeding $10,000 would be reported. After being told it would, the requested amount was divided across two days.
Bank anti money laundering personnel concluded that the pattern had the appearance of structuring. They confronted the attorney, who denied that he intended to evade reporting requirements. The bank accepted his explanation.
The attorney later withdrew another $100,000 in cash for Epstein.
The total amount withdrawn over approximately four years exceeded $800,000.
The consent order does not print Darren Indyke’s name. The identification of Attorney 1 as Indyke comes from cross referenced Epstein Data research and Indyke’s later testimony concerning the withdrawals.
That distinction matters. The source supports reporting that the attorney identified across records as Indyke made the withdrawals. It does not support falsely stating that the consent order itself names Indyke or that a court found him guilty of structuring.
Why the Cash Matters
Epstein’s abuse system relied heavily on cash. The federal criminal case alleged that girls were paid after sexual encounters and that some victims were paid to recruit other girls.
That does not prove that every dollar withdrawn by Indyke was used to pay victims or recruiters. It does make the destination of the cash a major unresolved question.
A proper investigation would compare every withdrawal date with Epstein’s calendars, appointment books, massage schedules, travel records, household records, telephone messages, and survivor testimony.
Investigators should also determine who physically received the cash after Indyke withdrew it. The current records document the withdrawal pattern, but they do not provide a complete cash disbursement ledger.
More Than $14.6 Million Entered Indyke’s Lawyer Trust Account
A TD Bank Suspicious Activity Report preserved as EFTA01656524 contains one of the most important financial leads.
An Epstein Data analysis of the report identifies three large wires into a Darren K. Indyke PLLC IOLA trust account opened in April 2019.
On April 18, 2019, the account reportedly received $2 million from Deutsche Bank through HBRK Associates.
On July 15, 2019, the account reportedly received $8 million from Charles Schwab through Southern Trust Company.
On July 30, 2019, it reportedly received another $4,657,830 from Charles Schwab through Southern Trust Company.
The three amounts total $14,657,830.
The underlying Epstein Data report previously used a section heading suggesting a total of $12.6 million. That heading is mathematically inconsistent with the three individual amounts. The correct arithmetic total is $14,657,830.
The use of an IOLA account is significant because a lawyer trust account is intended to hold client, escrow, settlement, or other fiduciary funds. It is not automatically suspicious for a lawyer trust account to receive large transfers.
The critical missing evidence is the account ledger showing where the money went next.
Investigators need the deposit records, disbursement checks, wire instructions, client ledgers, engagement agreements, escrow documents, settlement statements, and records identifying the beneficial owner of each transfer.
Without those records, it is impossible to determine whether the transfers were legitimate estate, legal, settlement, or escrow transactions or whether the account was used as a temporary layer between Epstein entities and other recipients.
The Haze Trust Held Approximately $40.61 Million
A June 20, 2016 Haze Trust holdings sheet titles the account to the Haze Trust with Jeffrey Epstein and Darren K. Indyke listed as trustees.
The visible cash and securities positions total approximately $40,609,999.90.
This record establishes that Indyke was not merely copied on an email involving the trust. His name was incorporated into the legal title of an account holding more than $40 million.
The document does not identify the ultimate beneficial owner of every asset or establish who selected each investment. It does establish Indyke’s formal fiduciary role.
Another record describes a $23 million transfer from Southern Trust Company to the Haze Trust.
The purpose of that transfer requires additional documentation. Investigators need the trust agreement, transfer authorization, bank ledger, tax reporting, and the records identifying whether the transfer was a contribution, loan, investment transfer, distribution, or internal reorganization.
Other Large Transfers and International Wires
The Epstein corpus contains numerous transaction records in which Indyke appears as an authorizer, account representative, signer, or responsible contact.
A Southern Trust Company wire record describes a transfer of $3,000,001.75 to an external beneficiary.
A separate wire record documents a transfer of 13.7 million Russian rubles to a Moscow bank.
Records involving Gratitude America show transfers to a Lithuanian ballet organization in EFTA01362207 and EFTA01362225.
A Gratitude America entity record identifies Indyke in a financial or administrative role.
A J. Epstein Virgin Islands Foundation record connects him to foundation and immigration related representation.
An LSJ LLC financial management record adds another Epstein related entity in which Indyke appears in a financial management context.
These records do not prove that the transfers had a single illegal purpose. They show the scope and international reach of the financial system Indyke helped administer.
Every transfer must be tested against its underlying contract, invoice, grant agreement, tax record, beneficial owner, and final recipient.
The Butterfly Trust Requires Further Scrutiny
The Butterfly Trust compliance record raises additional questions about Indyke’s authority and the trust’s beneficiaries, payments, and bank treatment.
The Butterfly Trust appears throughout Epstein banking records as a vehicle for payments to individuals, employees, women, alleged associates, and other beneficiaries.
The New York regulator found that Epstein accounts and the Butterfly Trust sent more than 120 wires totaling approximately $2.65 million to trust beneficiaries and other recipients.
Some payments were described as rent, tuition, hotel costs, legal costs, or personal expenses. The regulator did not determine that every transfer was criminal.
The investigative question is whether the trust functioned only as a legitimate estate or support vehicle or whether some payments financed, rewarded, concealed, or controlled people connected to Epstein’s operation.
Indyke’s Law Firm Was Inside the Epstein Banking Relationship
A banking record for Darren K. Indyke PLLC places his professional entity inside the broader Epstein banking relationship.
This is important because transactions involving Indyke must be separated into several categories.
Some funds may have represented ordinary legal fees.
Some may have represented client or escrow money.
Some may have involved settlement payments.
Some may have passed through the firm only because Indyke was serving as trustee, attorney, or estate representative.
Others may require further explanation.
The public records do not provide a complete set of invoices, engagement letters, time records, client ledgers, or tax forms supporting every payment to Indyke or his firm.
Those documents are essential because Senate investigators have reported that Epstein paid Indyke millions of dollars over many years. The reported totals cover overlapping time periods and should not be combined without transaction level records.
Maxwell, Ellmax, and Legal Payments
The records also connect Indyke to legal payments and entity activity involving Ghislaine Maxwell and Maxwell related structures.
A Maxwell related legal payment record should be examined alongside the relevant invoice, engagement agreement, bank ledger, and recipient records.
An Ellmax related record provides another lead involving entities associated with Maxwell.
These records require context. A lawyer arranging or authorizing legal payments does not establish participation in the recipient’s conduct.
The relevant question is whether the payments were ordinary legal expenses, indemnification, settlement obligations, witness support, employee protection, or part of a larger effort to shield people with knowledge of Epstein’s activities.
Aircraft and Travel Entities
Indyke’s role also extended into aircraft related companies.
The Deutsche Bank customer review lists him as signer or power of attorney for Hyperion Air LLC and Plan D LLC.
Additional aircraft and regulatory correspondence connects Indyke to aviation administration and government related logistics.
Epstein’s aircraft were central to his travel network. Formal authority over an aircraft company does not prove knowledge of every passenger or trip. It does make Indyke relevant to questions about ownership, expenses, insurance, registration, maintenance, crew contracts, and documentary control.
Epstein’s Final Will and the 1953 Trust
Epstein executed his final will on August 8, 2019, two days before his death.
The final will named Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn as coexecutors.
The 1953 Trust, also dated August 8, 2019, placed major assets and distributions under a private trust structure.
Indyke and Kahn’s roles gave them substantial control over estate administration, documents, claims, properties, settlements, and distributions after Epstein’s death.
An earlier May 8, 2018 trust instrument named Indyke, Richard Kahn, and Kathryn Ruemmler as trustees.
The trust architecture changed over time. Investigators should compare every version, amendment, beneficiary schedule, trustee change, asset schedule, and distribution condition.
The Grand Jury Subpoena
A 2019 Southern District of New York grand jury subpoena sought trust related material from Indyke in his capacity as executor.
The available Epstein Data query material did not identify a matched subpoena return in the indexed public corpus.
That does not prove that Indyke failed to comply. The response may have been produced under seal, logged as privileged, delivered outside the released collection, withheld from public disclosure, or missed by the index.
The missing public return remains important because it prevents the public from knowing what trust documents federal investigators obtained and what may have been withheld.
The Most Important New Evidence Involves Michelle Saipher
Michelle Fern Saipher’s documented relationship to Epstein’s financial structures is much more substantial than a simple reference to her as Darren Indyke’s wife.
The strongest evidence involves a direct payment, joint account transfers, a company jointly owned with Epstein, a major real estate funding sequence, and repeated trust provisions.
These records do not establish that Michelle participated in Epstein’s abuse or knew about it. They do establish that she was financially connected to Epstein controlled money and entities.
The $1.825 Million Payment to Michelle
A Deutsche Bank presentation to federal prosecutors lists a payment from an Epstein account to Michelle Saipher at TD Bank.
The record identifies one payment totaling $1,825,000 on May 16, 2014.
The bank’s analyst noted that it was unclear whether Michelle worked for Epstein.
The document does not state whether the payment was a loan, gift, property payment, investment distribution, business transaction, repayment, or compensation.
That missing purpose is critical. No responsible publication should label the transfer criminal proceeds without obtaining the underlying wire instruction, account statement, contract, loan document, closing statement, tax record, or correspondence.
Near Matching Transfers Five Days Later
Records dated May 21, 2014 show three transfers involving a joint account associated with Michelle Saipher and Darren Indyke.
A transaction chart identifies transfers of $698,000 and $525,000 involving the joint account.
A related transaction record provides additional documentation for the $698,000 movement.
A bank compliance communication describes a separate $600,000 wire from the joint account to New York Strategy Group.
The three May 21 amounts total $1,823,000.
That total is only $2,000 less than the $1,825,000 payment sent to Michelle five days earlier.
The amount and timing create an obvious investigative question about whether the May 16 payment and the May 21 transfers were parts of one coordinated transaction.
The existing documents do not prove that connection.
The compliance response for the $600,000 wire said Epstein had loaned money to New York Strategy Group or Darren and that the payment was a loan repayment routed through the company for accounting purposes.
That statement documents the explanation given to the bank. It is not independent proof that the explanation was complete or accurate.
The complete transaction can be resolved only by obtaining both sides of the bank statements, the original wire instructions, the loan agreement, the New York Strategy Group ledger, and any related tax or real estate records.
KCAC LLC Connected Michelle Directly to Epstein
An Epstein entity ownership schedule lists KCAC LLC as 60 percent owned by Jeffrey Epstein and 40 percent owned by Michelle Saipher.
The same schedule lists an Epstein capital account of $1,047,000 and a Michelle Saipher capital account of $763,000.
The copy reviewed does not clearly establish the date on which those percentages applied.
Later trust records describe Michelle as the sole member of KCAC LLC.
That change may have resulted from a transfer, redemption, capital contribution, ownership restructuring, or drafting difference. The current records do not provide the membership transfer agreement or date needed to explain the change.
Tax record indexes associated with EFTA00301830 and EFTA01108509 refer to a $405,000 capital contribution credited to Michelle and an ownership calculation of approximately 52.7 percent Michelle and 47.3 percent Epstein on a 2012 return.
Those tax references are investigative leads. The complete return and supporting schedules should be inspected before publishing the percentages as a final ownership determination.
The Repeated $3 Million Trust Provision
Epstein’s trust documents repeatedly contained a provision for a payment of up to $3 million to Michelle Fern Saipher.
A May 1, 2015 trust amendment contains an early version of the provision.
The January 2017 trust directs that, if Michelle remained married to Darren Indyke, the trustees should distribute $3 million to her so she could repay FT Real Estate for money connected to KCAC LLC’s residential real estate contract.
The January 18, 2019 trust repeats the $3 million KCAC provision and describes Michelle as the sole member of KCAC LLC.
The same January 2019 trust version also lists Michelle for a 5 percent residual interest. Samantha Indyke and Hannah Indyke were each separately listed for 5 percent.
The February 4, 2019 amended trust repeats the $3 million provision and the 5 percent residual entry.
The final August 8, 2019 trust retains the separate $3 million KCAC provision. The searched final copy does not contain the earlier residual schedule assigning Michelle 5 percent.
The records establish that Epstein repeatedly planned a substantial financial mechanism involving Michelle, Darren, KCAC LLC, FT Real Estate, and a residential property transaction.
They do not establish that Michelle ultimately received the $3 million or any residual distribution.
The trustee accounting, probate records, trust distribution ledger, and FT Real Estate records are needed to determine whether the payment occurred.
The 2015 Real Estate Funding Sequence
The TD Bank Suspicious Activity Report in EFTA01656524 identifies Darren and Michelle as authorized signers on a joint personal checking account.
The report describes the account receiving a $3 million wire from FT Real Estate during July 2015 with a real estate related memo. The account then reportedly funded approximately $2.839 million in closing costs.
This transaction appears closely related to the KCAC and trust provisions.
The SAR also notes that other TD accounts associated with Michelle did not show suspicious activity identified by the bank.
A Suspicious Activity Report is not a criminal charge or a finding of wrongdoing. It is a compliance report that may contain unverified information and allegations.
The underlying property closing file could resolve much of the uncertainty. It should identify the buyer, seller, property, title holder, source of funds, mortgage terms, closing agent, settlement charges, and ownership structure.
A 2019 Payment From Darren and Michelle
A June 17, 2019 transaction record identifies a $42,700 check from Darren K. Indyke and Michelle F. Saipher into a Southern Financial account.
The memo references interest payments under promissory notes dated June 13, 2018, and June 17, 2016.
The direction matters. This was a payment from Darren and Michelle, not a payment to them.
The underlying promissory notes are necessary to determine the principal amounts, lender, borrower, interest rate, collateral, repayment history, and purpose of the loans.
Harlequin Dane and Other Indyke Controlled Entities
The records connect Darren and Michelle to several personal companies outside the main Epstein entity network.
Harlequin Dane LLC was managed by Darren Indyke. Bank and trust records also connect Michelle to the entity during at least part of its history.
Birch Tree BR LLC lists Darren as its sole member.
Darren K. Indyke PLLC and the later Indyke Law Firm PLLC were his professional entities.
124 Parc Monceau LLC was another entity in which Darren held a formal management or registered agent role.
Sapphire Streets Enterprises LLC was registered in Michelle Saipher’s name.
These personal entities must be kept separate from Epstein owned companies where Darren acted as attorney, signer, officer, trustee, or representative.
The investigative question is whether any Epstein controlled money entered an Indyke owned company or whether any Indyke entity served as an intermediary for payments to other recipients.
The Civil and Government Allegations
Civil plaintiffs and the United States Virgin Islands accused Indyke and Richard Kahn of helping administer the financial and corporate machinery that supported Epstein’s enterprise.
A prosecutorial memorandum preserved as EFTA02731082 contains allegations and investigative characterizations that must be identified as allegations rather than adjudicated facts.
The United States Virgin Islands added Indyke and Kahn as defendants in their individual capacities. The litigation later settled without a trial finding that every allegation was proven.
In 2024, a federal judge allowed significant survivor claims against Indyke and Kahn to proceed beyond the dismissal stage. The ruling did not determine that the allegations were true. It determined that portions of the complaint were legally sufficient to continue.
On March 19, 2026, Indyke testified before the House Oversight Committee. He denied knowledge of Epstein’s trafficking activities. The committee released the deposition video on March 24, 2026.
Does This Prove Money Laundering?
No. The public evidence does not yet prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Darren Indyke or Michelle Saipher committed money laundering.
Money laundering requires more than large transfers, many companies, unusual trusts, or suspicious activity reports.
Investigators would need evidence that the money involved represented criminal proceeds or was used to promote unlawful activity. They would also need evidence that the person conducting the transaction knew its unlawful character and intended to conceal, disguise, promote, transfer, or avoid reporting the money.
The records do establish legitimate reasons for further investigation into possible structuring, financial facilitation, concealment, conflicts of interest, related party transactions, misuse of trust accounts, tax reporting, and the movement of funds between Epstein controlled and Indyke connected entities.
The evidence is strongest on formal control, suspicious cash activity, lawyer trust account transfers, trust benefits, joint transactions, and unresolved payment purposes.
The missing piece is the complete transaction trail.
What Investigators Should Obtain Next
The first priority should be the full ledger for the Darren K. Indyke PLLC IOLA account. Every deposit and disbursement should be matched to a client, matter, settlement, escrow agreement, invoice, or trust obligation.
The second priority should be the complete bank statements for the May 2014 payment to Michelle and the three near matching transfers five days later.
The third priority should be the KCAC LLC operating agreements, membership transfers, tax returns, capital account records, property closing file, and FT Real Estate ledger.
The fourth priority should be the promissory notes connected to the June 2019 $42,700 interest payment.
The fifth priority should be a cash ledger for all 97 withdrawals attributed to Indyke, including who received the money and how it was spent.
The sixth priority should be every version of the 1953 Trust, all beneficiary schedules, trustee accountings, distributions, debt forgiveness records, and documents showing whether Michelle or members of the Indyke family received any benefits.
The seventh priority should be the response to the 2019 grand jury subpoena, including any privilege log or document retention explanation.
The eighth priority should be the estate’s complete production log to Congress, including documents withheld on privilege grounds.
The ninth priority should be Indyke’s legal invoices, time records, engagement agreements, tax forms, and documentation supporting every payment made by Epstein or an Epstein entity.
The tenth priority should be a comparison between Indyke’s congressional testimony and the bank, trust, property, corporate, and transaction records.
Fact Checking Findings
The New York consent order does not name Darren Indyke. The identification of Attorney 1 comes from cross referenced evidence and his later testimony.
The repeated $7,500 withdrawals matched Deutsche Bank’s third party withdrawal limit. They were not automatically below the federal reporting threshold because of criminal intent.
The three 2019 IOLA wires total $14,657,830, not $12.6 million.
The $1.825 million payment to Michelle is documented, but its purpose is not identified in the source.
The May 21, 2014 transfers total $1.823 million. Their near match to the earlier payment creates an investigative lead, not proof of circular money movement.
The $3 million trust provision does not prove that Michelle received $3 million.
The 5 percent residual interests appear in earlier 2019 trust versions but were not identified in the searched final August 2019 trust copy.
A Suspicious Activity Report documents a bank’s concern. It is not proof that a crime occurred.
Civil complaints and prosecutorial memoranda contain allegations. They are not criminal convictions or final factual findings.
As of July 15, 2026, the public Department of Justice Epstein disclosure index contains numerous civil cases naming Indyke but does not identify a federal criminal prosecution of Darren Indyke.
Conclusion
The Epstein files do not portray Darren Indyke as a peripheral professional. They portray him as one of the people with the broadest documented authority across Epstein’s accounts, trusts, companies, estate documents, legal payments, aircraft entities, charities, and financial transactions.
The new evidence involving Michelle Saipher makes the story more significant. She received a documented $1.825 million payment from an Epstein account. A joint account associated with her and Darren then made near matching transfers five days later. She held an ownership interest in KCAC LLC with Epstein. Epstein’s estate plans repeatedly contained a $3 million mechanism tied to her, the company, FT Real Estate, and a residential property transaction.
None of those facts proves that Michelle knew about Epstein’s abuse or participated in criminal activity. They do establish that she was directly connected to Epstein controlled money, business ownership, property arrangements, and trust provisions.
The responsible conclusion is not that money laundering has already been proven. It is that the public record contains enough unexplained movement of money, related party transactions, trust account activity, cash withdrawals, and shifting ownership structures to justify a full forensic investigation.
The core questions are straightforward.
Where did the cash go?
Why did $14.6 million enter Indyke’s lawyer trust account?
What happened to the money afterward?
What was the purpose of the $1.825 million payment to Michelle?
Were the near matching transfers connected?
How did Michelle’s ownership of KCAC change?
Was the $3 million trust provision ever paid?
What services justified the millions paid to Indyke?
What documents were withheld under attorney client privilege?
Until those questions are answered with bank statements, ledgers, contracts, tax records, trust accountings, and sworn testimony, the financial machinery surrounding Jeffrey Epstein remains incomplete.
Primary Epstein Data Sources and Receipts
Darren Indyke Authority and Accounts
- Darren Indyke Entity Profile
- Darren Indyke Witness Briefing
- Deutsche Bank Power of Attorney
- Related Power of Attorney Record
- Related Account Authorization
- Deutsche Bank KYC Review
- Additional KYC Entity Roles
- JEGE Power of Attorney
- Darren K. Indyke PLLC Banking Record
Cash and Lawyer Trust Account Records
- Deutsche Bank Consent Order and Cash Withdrawals
- TD Bank Suspicious Activity Report and IOLA Transactions
Trusts and Estate Documents
- Haze Trust Holdings
- Southern Trust to Haze Trust Transfer
- Jeffrey Epstein Final Will
- The 1953 Trust
- 2018 Trust Instrument
- Grand Jury Subpoena to Indyke
Additional Wire and Entity Records
- Southern Trust Wire
- Ruble Wire to Moscow Bank
- Gratitude America Transfer Record
- Related Gratitude America Transfer
- Gratitude America Role Record
- J. Epstein Virgin Islands Foundation Record
- LSJ Financial Management Record
- Butterfly Trust Compliance Questions
- Aircraft and Government Correspondence
- Coinbase Related Transaction Correspondence
Maxwell and Litigation Related Records
Michelle Saipher Identity and Trust Records
- Michelle Saipher Alias and Index Variants
- Duplicate Identity Variant Record
- May 1, 2015 Trust Amendment
- January 2017 Trust
- January 18, 2019 Trust
- February 4, 2019 Amended Trust
- Final August 8, 2019 Trust
Michelle Saipher Company and Transaction Records
- KCAC LLC Ownership Schedule
- KCAC Tax Record Lead
- Additional KCAC Tax Record Lead
- $1.825 Million Payment to Michelle Saipher
- May 21 Joint Account Transaction Chart
- Additional Joint Account Transaction Record
- $600,000 New York Strategy Group Compliance Record
- $42,700 Interest Payment Record
- TD Bank Suspicious Activity Report
Additional Official Sources
- House Oversight Release of Darren Indyke Deposition
- Senate Finance Committee Letter Concerning Indyke and Kahn
- New York Department of Financial Services Deutsche Bank Consent Order
- Federal Court Opinion in Doe 3 v. Indyke
- United States Virgin Islands Amended Lawsuit Announcement
- United States Virgin Islands Settlement Announcement
- Department of Justice Epstein Disclosures