Tucked Away: Ghislaine Maxwell’s New Hampshire Hideout

PostedSeptember 21, 2026

UpdatedSeptember 21, 2026

ByEpsteinWiki

Snapshot

Field	Details
Property name	Tucked Away
Address	338 East Washington Road, Bradford, New Hampshire 03221
Property type	Secluded rural estate with a main residence, an older farmhouse or guest residence, outbuildings, fields, woods, trails, and a long private drive
Reported land area	Approximately 156 acres
Reported 2019 purchase price	$1,070,750
2019 purchaser of record	Granite Reality LLC, according to the recorded deed cited in contemporaneous reporting. Granite Realty LLC is a frequent but potentially erroneous variant.
Purchase date	December 13, 2019, according to the recorded deed and property reporting
Maxwell’s documented connection	Maxwell occupied the estate, used an alias during the acquisition process, employed private security there, and was arrested there by the FBI
Alias documented in the transaction	Janet Marshall. A male companion was presented to the real estate agent as Scott Marshall.
Arrest date	July 2, 2020
Arresting authority	Federal Bureau of Investigation
Criminal docket	United States v. Maxwell, No. 1:20 cr 00330, Southern District of New York
New Hampshire removal docket	United States v. Maxwell, No. 1:20 mj 00132, District of New Hampshire
Later case outcome	Maxwell was convicted on five counts on December 29, 2021 and sentenced to 240 months in prison on June 28, 2022
Current property status	The estate was marketed in 2025 and reportedly sold in March 2026 for just under $2.4 million. Public reporting indicates that the deed moved away from the Maxwell linked entity. Current private occupants are not identified here.
Central evidentiary significance	The property links Maxwell’s period of concealment after Epstein’s 2019 arrest and death to an alias based purchase, an LLC, a trust and bank transfer chain, private security, cellular tracking, and the federal arrest that began her criminal prosecution.

Key Takeaways

Tucked Away was the Bradford, New Hampshire estate where the FBI arrested Ghislaine Maxwell on July 2, 2020. The location is established by federal court records, the District of New Hampshire removal proceeding, contemporaneous reporting, and later Department of Justice disclosures.

The estate was acquired in December 2019 for $1,070,750 through an LLC whose name is recorded in some primary and contemporaneous sources as Granite Reality LLC. Many later reports use Granite Realty LLC. That one word difference matters because unrelated companies use the more common Realty spelling.

The acquisition was not merely private. According to a prosecutor’s description of the real estate agent’s FBI interview, Maxwell and a male companion introduced themselves as Janet and Scott Marshall. They described her as a journalist who valued privacy, described him as retired from the British military and writing a book, said they wanted to close quickly by wire, and said an LLC was being established.

Released financial records add a separate layer. A federal investigative chart links the Bradford purchase to money moving from a UBS account associated with Montpelier Trust, through a TD Ameritrade account, and onward to the trust or account used for the property acquisition. The chart and related records document a transaction trail. They do not, standing alone, prove that the purchase money was criminal proceeds.

A Suspicious Activity Report summarized in released records reportedly suggested that the property was purchased with proceeds from human trafficking. A Suspicious Activity Report is a financial institution’s compliance report and investigative lead. It is not a conviction, a judicial finding, or proof that the reported theory was correct.

The arrest record documents concealment behavior. Prosecutors said Maxwell had remained inside, relied on private guards for errands, used a telephone wrapped in aluminum foil, and moved away from agents when they entered. Later unsealed warrant material showed that investigators used cellular location data and a court authorized device to narrow the phone’s location.

No reviewed evidence establishes that Jeffrey Epstein owned Tucked Away, visited it, lived there, or committed abuse there. The property entered the Epstein record after his July 2019 arrest and August 2019 death. Its importance is as Maxwell’s hideout, a financial and concealment node, and the site of her arrest, not as a documented site of Epstein’s earlier abuse.

Source and Provenance

This article gives priority to court records, Department of Justice disclosures, recorded property information, and contemporaneous reporting. Later investigative reporting is used where it connects newly released EFTA records to the purchase and banking trail.

Source class	What it can establish	What it cannot establish by itself
Federal indictment, detention filings, transcripts, and orders	Charges, prosecutor representations, defense positions, judicial rulings, arrest details placed before the court, and case history	A prosecutor’s factual assertion is not automatically a trial finding
District of New Hampshire removal docket	Maxwell’s initial federal appearance, temporary detention, identity, and transfer to New York	It does not decide the merits of the Southern District of New York charges
Deed, tax card, and closing records	Purchaser name, property address, recording date, price, parcel details, and transaction participants	An LLC name does not reveal every beneficial owner or source of funds
Bank, trust, wire, and investigative records	Account relationships, transfer amounts, dates, intermediaries, and investigators’ reconstruction	A transfer path does not by itself prove illegality or the origin of every dollar
Suspicious Activity Reports	What a financial institution considered suspicious enough to report	A Suspicious Activity Report is not a criminal charge or adjudicated fact
Search warrant material	Investigative basis for cellular location techniques and the court authorization sought	A warrant affidavit can include allegations and investigative inferences
Real estate listings	Physical description, represented square footage, structures, amenities, list price, and marketing history	Listing language is promotional and is not a substitute for a survey or certified tax record
Reuters and local reporting	Interviews, document synthesis, transaction context, and later sale history	Reporting should be checked against linked primary records when available

Private contact information, bank numbers, telephone numbers, and the identities of current private occupants are omitted. The address is included because it appears in court records, official disclosures, property records, and extensive public reporting about the federal arrest.

What Was Tucked Away?

Tucked Away was the name associated with a large rural estate on East Washington Road in Bradford, a small town in Merrimack County, New Hampshire. Reporting and property marketing described roughly 156 acres reached by a private drive of about half a mile. A stone near the entrance reportedly carried the property name.

The estate included a timber framed main residence, a separate older farmhouse or guest residence, a workshop or garage building, fields, forest, trails, and a pond. Real estate sources have not always described the structures in the same way. Some call the second dwelling a guest house or guest barn. Later rental marketing described an antique farmhouse with a newer addition. These descriptions can refer to different structures or to different marketing treatments of the same secondary residence.

The property’s physical isolation was directly relevant to its use. The long drive, extensive acreage, signs restricting entry, multiple buildings, and rural surroundings offered visual privacy and controlled access. Prosecutors relied on that setting, together with Maxwell’s aliases, security arrangements, finances, and international ties, when arguing that she posed a serious flight risk.

The name Tucked Away is best treated as an estate name, not a separate corporation. The recorded owner was an LLC, while other accounts and trusts appear in the financing trail.

Property Profile

Feature	Publicly documented description	Caution
Acreage	Approximately 156 acres	Rounded figures recur across court and real estate reporting
Main house	Four bedrooms, approximately three and one half to four bathrooms, timber frame construction, large stone fireplace, broad views	Bedroom, bathroom, and square footage counts vary by listing and structure
Secondary residence	Older farmhouse, guest residence, or guest barn with residential space	Public listings use inconsistent labels
Other structures	Workshop, multi bay garage, barn space, gazebo, and utility buildings	A current survey is needed for a complete structure inventory
Access	Long private drive, reportedly about half a mile, with restricted entry signs	Distance is a reported approximation
Landscape	Fields, forest, trails, mountain views, and a pond fed by moving water	Mostly derived from marketing descriptions
Privacy	Remote placement and separation from the public road	Privacy was both a listing feature and a material fact in the detention record

These features explain why the property was attractive to a buyer seeking isolation. They do not establish that every building was occupied by Maxwell, that all guards lived on site, or that any criminal act occurred in any particular structure.

Timeline

Date	Event	Evidentiary significance
July 6, 2019	Jeffrey Epstein was arrested on federal sex trafficking charges in New York	Beginning of the immediate period preceding Maxwell’s disappearance from public view
August 1, 2019	UBS reportedly told Maxwell it intended to end its banking relationship within a month	Relevant to the later movement of funds, based on released bank correspondence reported by Reuters
August 10, 2019	Epstein died in federal custody	Maxwell remained under intense public and investigative scrutiny
August 16, 2019	Federal investigators issued UBS a grand jury subpoena seeking Maxwell’s financial records, according to released documents	Establishes that her banking relationship was under criminal investigative scrutiny before the property purchase
November 2019	The New Hampshire property purchasing entity was formed shortly before the acquisition	Supports the conclusion that the entity was transaction specific, though not that its use was unlawful
November 12, 2019	UBS transferred nearly $8 million from a Montpelier Trust account to a TD Ameritrade account controlled or held for the next stage of the transaction, according to a federal investigative chart	Major step in the documented money trail
December 13, 2019	The Bradford estate was purchased for $1,070,750 in cash or cash equivalent funds through the LLC	Establishes acquisition date, price, and purchaser of record
December 2019 to July 2020	Maxwell lived at the estate under a low profile and used private security	Period prosecutors characterized as concealment or hiding
July 1, 2020	An FBI agent sought court authority to use a cellular locating device after other location data narrowed Maxwell’s phone to an area of about one square mile	Documents the final location phase of the arrest operation
July 2, 2020	FBI agents entered Tucked Away and arrested Maxwell	The property became the arrest site in the federal case
July 2, 2020	Maxwell appeared by video in the District of New Hampshire, was temporarily detained, and was ordered transferred to New York	Procedural beginning of the criminal case following the arrest
July 13 and 14, 2020	Prosecutors and defense counsel litigated detention in the Southern District of New York	Produced the detailed public descriptions of the property, aliases, guards, phone, and arrest behavior
July 14, 2020	Judge Alison Nathan denied bail	The court found that no release conditions would reasonably assure Maxwell’s appearance
December 29, 2021	A federal jury convicted Maxwell on five counts	Converted central charged conduct into criminal findings, but did not make Tucked Away an abuse site
June 28, 2022	Maxwell was sentenced to 240 months in prison, five years of supervised release, and a fine	Final judgment in the trial court
2025	The estate was listed for sale at approximately $2.49 million and later reduced to approximately $2.37 million	Shows the property’s post conviction market history
March 2026	Public real estate reporting said the estate sold for just under $2.4 million	Indicates transfer away from the Maxwell linked entity
May and June 2026	A secondary farmhouse on the estate was advertised for rent	Shows later separate use of part of the property; the listing did not disclose the Maxwell history

The 2019 Purchase

The deed was recorded on December 13, 2019. Contemporaneous property reporting identified the purchaser as Granite Reality LLC and the price as $1,070,750. Later news and real estate reports frequently changed Reality to Realty. The distinction should be preserved in research because a similarly named but unrelated company denied involvement when contacted in 2020.

The timing is significant. The purchasing entity was formed shortly before the closing, the acquisition occurred five months after Epstein’s federal arrest and four months after his death, and Maxwell’s public whereabouts were then the subject of international speculation.

Use of an LLC in a real estate purchase is lawful and common. Its evidentiary significance here comes from the total context: the entity was newly formed, the buyers used names that were not their publicly known identities, they emphasized privacy, they sought a rapid wire funded closing, Maxwell then occupied the estate without publicly identifying herself, and prosecutors later characterized the arrangement as deliberately anonymized.

The public record supports describing the transaction as concealed or anonymized. It does not support treating the LLC’s existence alone as proof of money laundering, trafficking, fraud, or another crime.

Janet and Scott Marshall

At Maxwell’s July 2020 detention hearing, Assistant United States Attorney Alison Moe described information supplied to the FBI by the real estate agent. According to that account, the prospective buyers introduced themselves as Scott and Janet Marshall and spoke with British accents. The man said he was retired from the British military and writing a book. Janet said she was a journalist who valued privacy. The pair said they wanted to purchase quickly by wire and were establishing an LLC.

The government identified Janet Marshall as Maxwell. Public reporting and later financial records connected the male companion and transaction arrangements to Scott Borgerson. Sources differ in how they describe Borgerson’s personal relationship with Maxwell, including partner and husband. Court financial submissions treated their finances as combined and identified a marriage, while public records and public statements have not always resolved every detail of the relationship. This article uses companion, partner, or husband only where the cited source supports that description.

The alias evidence is strong because it was placed on the record by a prosecutor as the result of an FBI interview, and later released transaction records corroborate the concealed purchase structure. The evidence does not establish that every document was signed in the name Janet Marshall or that the alias was itself charged as a separate crime.

Ownership and Entity Structure

Person or entity	Documented role	Evidence status
Ghislaine Maxwell	Occupant, person arrested at the estate, alias user, and grantor associated with Montpelier Trust	Confirmed by court, investigative, and financial records
Granite Reality LLC	Purchaser named in the deed cited by contemporaneous reporting	Confirmed, subject to the Reality versus Realty spelling issue
Scott Borgerson	Linked to the transaction entity, trust structure, financial arrangements, and the Scott Marshall presentation	Supported by court submissions, released records, and investigative reporting
Montpelier Trust	Trust associated with Maxwell and the source account for the major November 2019 UBS transfer	Supported by released bank and investigative records
UBS	Bank that held Maxwell linked accounts and sent nearly $8 million in November 2019	Supported by released bank records and federal investigative analysis
TD Ameritrade account	Intermediate account in the federal flow chart	Supported by the investigative chart; exact legal ownership should be read from the underlying record
Closing attorney and real estate professionals	Facilitated the property transaction in ordinary professional roles	Their participation does not establish knowledge of Maxwell’s identity, charges, or any unlawful purpose
Private security personnel	Guarded Maxwell and handled errands while she remained at the estate	Described by prosecutors and later reporting

The legal title, beneficial interest, trust funding, and practical control should not be collapsed into one concept. The deed identifies a purchaser. The trust and bank records address money. The arrest establishes Maxwell’s occupancy. Court financial papers address shared wealth and control. Each source answers a different question.

Financial Trail to Bradford

The strongest public reconstruction comes from an April 12, 2022 federal investigative chart released as EFTA01655199. The chart is titled with the Bradford address and says it draws on financial crime information. Reuters reported the following sequence from the document and related records:

Stage	Date or period	Documented movement
1	Before November 2019	Montpelier Trust held a UBS account associated with Maxwell as grantor
2	November 12, 2019	UBS transferred nearly $8 million from the trust linked account
3	November 2019	Funds moved to a TD Ameritrade account for which Borgerson was reported as custodian
4	Before closing	Funds moved onward to the trust or account used in the Bradford acquisition
5	December 13, 2019	The buyer entity completed the approximately $1.07 million purchase

The transfer amount was much larger than the property price. The public chart therefore should not be paraphrased as an $8 million payment for a $1.07 million house. It shows a larger asset movement from which the property purchase funds were drawn.

Reuters also reported that UBS had received a grand jury subpoena concerning Maxwell’s financial dealings on August 16, 2019 and was communicating with the FBI about production in November. The bank nevertheless processed the transfer. Reuters said it could not determine whether UBS alerted authorities to that transaction. UBS declined to discuss client matters.

An investigator email released as EFTA01659441 discussed a Suspicious Activity Report that suggested the New Hampshire property had been purchased with proceeds from human trafficking. That language is important but must be classified correctly. It records a reported suspicion transmitted through the anti money laundering system. No cited judgment in Maxwell’s criminal case found that the Tucked Away purchase money was trafficking proceeds, and the property was not forfeited in the trial judgment on that stated theory.

Money Flow Chart

Source or node	Transfer or function	Next node	Confidence
Maxwell linked Montpelier Trust account at UBS	Nearly $8 million transferred on November 12, 2019	TD Ameritrade account	High, based on federal investigative chart and bank records
TD Ameritrade account	Held or transmitted funds under Borgerson related control	Property purchase trust or transaction account	High for the broad path, but account level details require the source record
Property purchase trust or account	Supplied closing funds	Granite Reality LLC acquisition of 338 East Washington Road	High for the closing connection
Granite Reality LLC	Took record title	Tucked Away estate	High, based on deed and property records
Maxwell	Occupied the property and was arrested there	Federal custody	Conclusive as to arrest and occupancy

This chart is a documentary map. It is not a finding that each intermediary knew Maxwell’s purpose, that every dollar came from a single source, or that the chain constituted a crime.

How the FBI Located Maxwell

The public record shows a layered search rather than a single tip. Federal investigators had identified a mobile telephone account opened under the name G Max. Earlier warrant authority allowed investigators to use GPS and historical cellular information to narrow the phone to an area of roughly one square mile in New Hampshire.

On July 1, 2020, an FBI agent sought additional authority to use a device capable of receiving or prompting signals from cellular devices near the target location. Public reporting commonly describes the device as a cell site simulator. The affidavit’s operative importance is narrower: investigators asked to locate the target phone more precisely without collecting the content of calls or messages through the device.

This sequence helps explain why the foil wrapped telephone found at the house was relevant to the detention argument. Prosecutors characterized the foil as a misguided attempt to avoid detection. The existence of the wrapped phone is a government representation supported by the search. The user’s exact motive cannot be known solely from the object.

Later released records also describe investigators examining travel, card, address, and property information connected to Maxwell and Borgerson. Those leads supplied context, but the unsealed cellular warrant provides the clearest public account of the final precision locating step.

The July 2, 2020 Arrest

FBI agents arrived at the Bradford estate early on July 2, 2020. Reuters reported that agents forced entry at the compound at the end of the long drive. Prosecutors later told the court that agents announced themselves and that Maxwell moved away from them into another room rather than opening the door. She was arrested inside without a publicly reported exchange of gunfire or physical injury.

The search and arrest produced several facts used by prosecutors in the bail litigation:

Arrest detail	Government position	Evidentiary caution
Movement away from agents	Prosecutors argued that Maxwell tried to evade apprehension inside the house	It was not charged as a separate escape offense
Foil wrapped telephone	Prosecutors described it as an apparent effort to evade detection	The object supports concealment concerns but does not prove technical effectiveness or subjective intent by itself
Private security	Former British military personnel guarded the property	Employment as security is lawful; relevance came from isolation and avoidance of public exposure
Limited outside movement	Guards reportedly conducted errands while Maxwell remained inside	Based on the government’s detention submission
Remote setting	Large acreage, long drive, and controlled entrance	Physical facts supported the flight risk analysis

Maxwell appeared that day by video before a federal judge in New Hampshire. The District of New Hampshire opened removal case No. 1:20 mj 00132. She was temporarily detained and transferred to the Southern District of New York, where the indictment had been filed under seal.

The Bail Record and Judicial Findings

The government argued that Maxwell posed an extreme flight risk because she had three citizenships, extensive international connections, opaque finances, substantial resources, a history of concealed movement, aliases, and the Bradford arrangement. The defense argued that she had remained in the United States, had not fled when Epstein was arrested, and could be released under restrictive conditions.

Judge Alison Nathan denied bail on July 14, 2020. The ruling reflected the total record, not the New Hampshire house alone. The judge concluded that the government had shown by a preponderance of the evidence that no combination of release conditions would reasonably assure Maxwell’s appearance.

The ruling makes certain points judicially established for detention purposes, including the flight risk determination. It does not transform every prosecutor statement about the house into a jury verdict. Careful publication should continue to label the government’s account of the foil wrapped phone, guards, and movement inside the residence as prosecutor representations supported by the arrest record.

Relationship to Maxwell’s Conviction

The charges tried in New York concerned Maxwell’s role in recruiting, grooming, transporting, and facilitating the sexual abuse of minor girls with Jeffrey Epstein during earlier years. The Department of Justice stated after sentencing that the proven conduct occurred at Epstein residences in New York, Florida, and New Mexico and at Maxwell’s London residence.

Tucked Away was not identified by the Justice Department as one of the locations where the trial proved that grooming or abuse occurred. The property was purchased in 2019, long after the core charged periods. Its legal significance lay in arrest, detention, flight risk, finances, and concealment.

On December 29, 2021, the jury convicted Maxwell of conspiracy to entice minors to travel to engage in illegal sex acts, conspiracy to transport minors to participate in illegal sex acts, transporting a minor to participate in illegal sex acts, sex trafficking conspiracy, and sex trafficking of a minor. She was acquitted on one count. On June 28, 2022, she received a 240 month prison sentence, five years of supervised release, and a fine.

The Second Circuit later affirmed the conviction, and the Supreme Court denied review in October 2025. Those later proceedings confirm the final criminal judgment but do not add a finding that Tucked Away was an abuse location.

Was Jeffrey Epstein Ever There?

No reviewed public evidence establishes that Jeffrey Epstein visited Tucked Away.

The timeline weighs strongly against casual assumptions. The purchase closed on December 13, 2019. Epstein had died on August 10, 2019, four months earlier. He therefore could not have visited the estate after the Maxwell linked entity acquired it.

Could he have visited the property before the purchase? That remains theoretically possible for any publicly marketed property, but no flight log, calendar, email, photograph, witness account, transaction record, or court filing reviewed for this article places him there. There is also no verified evidence that he selected the property, negotiated the deal, or directly funded the closing.

The financial chain originates in wealth associated with Maxwell’s trust and banking structure. Reuters reported that a substantial portion of Maxwell’s wealth traced to the 2015 sale of a Manhattan townhouse and movement through UBS accounts. Questions remain about the earlier origin and ownership history of some assets, but that is not the same as proof that Epstein paid for Tucked Away.

The responsible conclusion is narrow: Tucked Away is an EpsteinWiki subject because Maxwell was Epstein’s convicted accomplice and the property was her hideout and arrest site. It should not be described as Epstein’s New Hampshire property.

Was Abuse or Trafficking Conduct Documented at the Property?

No reviewed court judgment, victim account, indictment, or official investigative summary establishes that sexual abuse, recruitment, grooming, or trafficking occurred at Tucked Away.

The phrase human trafficking appears in the financial record because a Suspicious Activity Report reportedly proposed that the property had been purchased with trafficking proceeds. That is a theory about the source of money, not an allegation that trafficking acts occurred on the land.

This distinction protects both accuracy and survivors. Attaching unsupported abuse claims to a dramatic property can divert attention from the locations and conduct that survivors actually described and that the jury actually considered.

EFTA Evidence Index

Record	Description	Relevance	Limitation
EFTA00066216	Maxwell bail hearing transcript and related court material	Alias presentation, real estate agent account, detention arguments, finances, and judicial treatment	A transcript contains advocacy as well as findings
EFTA02824716	Maxwell appellate court record collection	Preserves court filings addressing detention and related procedural history	Large court compilation; cite the specific filing and page when quoting
EFTA01655199	Federal investigative flow chart titled with the Bradford address	Money movement from UBS and Montpelier Trust through intermediary accounts toward the property purchase	Investigative analysis, not a final judicial finding
EFTA00022407	Financial analysis concerning Maxwell’s assets and real estate proceeds	Context for asset origin, UBS accounts, and property purchases	Accountant or investigative characterization must be separated from adjudicated fact
EFTA01659441	Investigative correspondence discussing a Suspicious Activity Report	Records the reported trafficking proceeds suspicion	Suspicion only, not proof
EFTA00091671	Maxwell related bank transfer and account material	Context for funds collected and moved after Epstein’s 2019 arrest	Transaction context must be verified page by page
EFTA00089287	Buyer and seller transaction document for Tucked Away	Supports the purchase record and parties	Closing paperwork does not establish beneficial ownership by itself
EFTA00089317	Granite Reality wire record	Supports closing funding mechanics	A wire record does not prove illegal source or intent
EFTA00089336	Closing document set	Supports price, closing process, and transaction participants	Professional participation does not imply knowledge of concealment or crime
EFTA01252240	Emails provided to the FBI concerning the sale of 338 East Washington Road	Supports buyer presentation, closing communications, and agent evidence	Email authors may use shorthand or incomplete names
EFTA01304987	Property card for 338 East Washington Road	Address, parcel, improvement, and owner information	Tax cards can lag later transfers
EFTA01597399	Montpelier Trust statement	Trust and account context for the financial trail	A statement covers the listed period and does not explain the full trust history
EFTA01654914	FBI analysis of UBS production	Bank relationship and transfer context	Investigative synthesis should be checked against the underlying bank exhibits

The EFTA viewer is a research access point. For publication involving disputed language, researchers should compare the viewer copy with the corresponding Department of Justice production and preserve the page number, dataset, and retrieval date.

What the Evidence Proves

Proposition	Status	Basis
Maxwell was arrested at 338 East Washington Road in Bradford on July 2, 2020	Confirmed	Federal court and Justice Department records
The estate comprised about 156 acres	Strongly supported	Court, property, and real estate records
The 2019 purchase price was $1,070,750	Confirmed	Deed and property transaction reporting
An LLC acquired title	Confirmed	Deed and closing records
Maxwell used Janet Marshall during the acquisition process	Confirmed as a prosecutor’s account of the agent’s FBI statement, with later documentary corroboration	Bail transcript and transaction records
A companion used Scott Marshall	Confirmed as a prosecutor’s account of the agent’s FBI statement	Bail transcript
Maxwell occupied the estate and employed private security	Confirmed	Arrest and detention record
Investigators used cellular location data to find her	Confirmed	Unsealed warrant material
A telephone was found wrapped in aluminum foil	Strongly supported government representation	Detention filing and hearing record
Funds traveled from a Maxwell linked UBS trust account through intermediary accounts before the purchase	Strongly supported	Federal investigative chart and bank records
A financial institution reported suspicion about trafficking proceeds	Confirmed as a report of suspicion	Investigative correspondence referencing a Suspicious Activity Report
Maxwell was convicted and sentenced	Conclusive	Jury verdict and judgment

What the Evidence Does Not Prove

The public record reviewed for this article does not prove any of the following:

That Jeffrey Epstein owned, occupied, or visited Tucked Away.
That abuse, grooming, recruitment, or trafficking occurred at the property.
That the entire nearly $8 million UBS transfer paid for the approximately $1.07 million property.
That the Suspicious Activity Report’s trafficking proceeds theory was adopted by a court.
That every real estate professional, lawyer, banker, guard, contractor, or neighbor knew Maxwell’s identity or purpose.
That the use of an LLC, trust, wire transfer, alias, or security team was independently criminal.
That all wealth used in the transaction originated with Epstein.
That every person who stayed, worked, or visited at the estate participated in concealment.
That the foil wrapped phone successfully blocked tracking or was wrapped by Maxwell personally.
That later property owners or occupants have any connection to Maxwell or Epstein.

Fact Check and Common Errors

Claim	Assessment	Correct treatment
The address was 338 Washington Road	Substantially correct but incomplete	Use 338 East Washington Road, Bradford, New Hampshire
The property was in Bedford	False	It was in Bradford. Early breaking reports sometimes confused the town name.
Granite Realty LLC bought the property	Potential spelling error	The recorded deed was reported as Granite Reality LLC. Note both forms and do not merge unrelated entities.
Maxwell bought the estate for $1.1 million	Accurate as a rounded figure	The reported recorded price was $1,070,750
The estate was 156 acres	Accurate as a recurring approximation	Use approximately 156 acres unless citing a certified survey
Epstein hid there with Maxwell	Unsupported and chronologically impossible after purchase	Epstein died before the December 2019 closing
The property was part of Epstein’s abuse network	Unsupported	It was Maxwell’s post 2019 hideout and arrest site
The FBI found Maxwell only because of a delivery labeled G Max	Unsupported as a complete explanation	Unsealed records establish cellular location work; other leads may also have contributed
Maxwell escaped from agents	Overstated	Prosecutors said she moved into another room. She was arrested inside the property.
The foil wrapped phone proves sophisticated counter surveillance	Overstated	Prosecutors called the effort misguided, and investigators had already located the phone
The property purchase was judicially found to use trafficking proceeds	False	That proposition appeared as a Suspicious Activity Report suspicion, not a court finding
The 2026 sale returned money to Maxwell	Not established by the reviewed public record	Ownership, liens, expenses, legal claims, and net proceeds would need documentary tracing

Later Marketing and Sale

The estate returned to the market in July 2025 at approximately $2.49 million. The asking price was later reduced to approximately $2.37 million. Marketing emphasized acreage, privacy, mountain views, the main timber framed residence, a secondary farmhouse, workshop space, trails, fields, and a pond. The listing did not foreground the property’s association with Maxwell’s arrest.

In March 2026, real estate reporting said the property sold for just under $2.4 million, more than twice the 2019 price. Later deed and rental reporting indicated that Granite Reality or Granite Realty was no longer the owner of record. A secondary farmhouse was then advertised for rent.

The sale price is a gross transaction figure. It does not establish who received net proceeds after commissions, taxes, mortgages, liens, legal fees, contractual obligations, or other claims. Without the closing statement and ownership records, claims that Maxwell personally profited from the sale remain unproven.

Later private owners and tenants are not part of the Epstein network merely because they acquired or occupied the land. Publication should avoid turning a historic arrest address into continuing suspicion of unrelated residents.

Why Tucked Away Matters

Tucked Away compresses several recurring features of the Epstein and Maxwell record into one property: wealth held through trusts, private banking, a newly formed title entity, aliases, professional intermediaries, high end security, physical isolation, and a gap between public visibility and practical access to resources.

The property also marks a major accountability transition. Before July 2, 2020, Maxwell had not been brought before a criminal court for the conduct later proved at trial. After the arrest, survivors could see a living defendant answer charges that Epstein’s death had prevented him from facing through trial.

The estate’s evidentiary value therefore does not depend on inventing abuse at the location. Its documented role is significant enough: it was the place where concealment ended and the federal prosecution began.

Survivor Safety and Privacy Review

This article does not name survivors merely to connect them to the arrest site. The Department of Justice credited survivors’ courage in reporting, testifying, and speaking at sentencing. Their testimony established the crimes for which Maxwell was convicted.

The property record should be presented in a way that supports that history. Photographs, floor plans, current occupants, and speculative claims about secret rooms add little unless tied to verified evidence. Unsupported sensationalism can displace the documented acts, the institutions that failed to intervene, and the people who carried the burden of disclosure.

The address is retained because it is a central public fact in a federal arrest and a released financial investigation. Current private contact details and occupant identities are excluded because they are not necessary to understand the Maxwell case.

Questions for Further Research

What is the exact legal name of the purchaser in the certified deed and every closing document: Granite Reality LLC, Granite Realty LLC, or both in different instruments?
Who were the disclosed members, managers, beneficial owners, and signatories of the purchasing entity on the formation date and closing date?
What exact amount moved from each account into the closing escrow, and what happened to the remainder of the nearly $8 million UBS transfer?
Which trust or account was the immediate source of the $1,070,750 purchase funds?
What records support the Suspicious Activity Report’s trafficking proceeds theory, and did investigators accept, reject, or leave that theory unresolved?
Did UBS file a timely Suspicious Activity Report before the purchase, after the purchase, after Maxwell’s arrest, or in more than one period?
What information did each professional intermediary receive about the buyers’ true identities?
Who authorized and paid for the security arrangement, and what dates did it cover?
What property, devices, and documents were seized at Tucked Away under the federal search authority?
Did any visitor logs, guard records, deliveries, photographs, or device records identify additional occupants or visitors during Maxwell’s residence?
What liens, legal claims, expenses, or trust obligations affected the 2026 sale proceeds?
Can the 2026 deed and closing statement establish the exact sale price and disposition of net proceeds without exposing unrelated current residents?
Did any federal forfeiture, restitution, civil recovery, or victim compensation process make a claim against the property or sale proceeds?
Are there additional unsealed warrant returns or inventories in the District of New Hampshire record?

Related EpsteinWiki Pages

Ghislaine Maxwell
Ghislaine Maxwell Entities
Scott Borgerson
Jeffrey Epstein
United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell
Montpelier Trust
UBS
Maxwell Financial Network
Epstein Files Transparency Act
Survivor Testimony in the Maxwell Trial

Source List

Tags:

Uncategorized