UBS

UpdatedSeptember 8, 2026

ByEpsteinWiki

By 2016 Annual Report, Fair use, Link

Snapshot

Released records establish that UBS had separate financial relationships with both Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell.

UBS briefly provided Epstein with a credit card in 2014, years after his conviction for soliciting prostitution from a minor. The bank closed the account that September because its compliance department considered Epstein a reputational risk.

At nearly the same time, UBS accepted Maxwell as a wealth management client after she left JPMorgan Chase. UBS opened personal, business, charitable, and trust accounts for her and eventually managed as much as $19 million.

The records show that UBS:

Issued Epstein a credit card in 2014
Closed Epstein’s card because of reputational risk
Accepted Maxwell as a client despite her publicly documented relationship with Epstein
Opened accounts for Maxwell, her businesses, her charity, and multiple trusts
Assigned two private wealth advisers to her relationship
Transferred millions of dollars at Maxwell’s direction
Continued processing transactions after Epstein’s July 2019 arrest
Received a federal grand jury subpoena concerning Maxwell in August 2019
Transferred nearly $8 million from a Maxwell linked trust in November 2019
Participated in the money trail that ended with the purchase of Maxwell’s secluded New Hampshire residence
Filed a suspicious activity report after Maxwell’s arrest covering more than $18 million in transfers

The released evidence does not establish that UBS participated in Epstein’s sexual abuse or knowingly financed trafficking. It does show that the bank recognized Epstein as a reputational risk while continuing to manage substantial assets for the woman later convicted of helping him recruit and groom teenage girls.

What Is UBS

UBS Group AG is a multinational bank headquartered in Switzerland. Its operations include private banking, wealth management, asset management, investment banking, brokerage services, credit products, and trust related financial services.

The records involving Epstein and Maxwell principally concern UBS Financial Services and UBS Bank USA.

UBS Financial Services operated the wealth management and brokerage accounts used by Maxwell and her entities. UBS Bank USA provided banking products that included Epstein’s short lived credit card relationship.

The distinction matters because the released files contain statements, credit agreements, trust documents, correspondence, and subpoena responses from different parts of the UBS organization.

UBS Issued Epstein a Credit Card in 2014

UBS provided Epstein with a credit card in 2014.

This occurred approximately six years after Epstein pleaded guilty in Florida to offenses involving prostitution and a minor. By then, his conviction and sex offender status were matters of public record.

EFTA02712531 contains correspondence concerning Epstein’s UBS credit card. The email chain shows the account existed and was discussed by Epstein’s financial staff.

The relationship appears to have been limited. The released evidence does not show UBS replacing JPMorgan or Deutsche Bank as Epstein’s principal financial institution.

It does prove that UBS extended a financial product to him after his conviction.

UBS Closed Epstein’s Card for Reputational Risk

In September 2014, Epstein’s accountant informed him that UBS would close his credit cards because the bank’s compliance department did not want the reputational risk.

The communication appears in EFTA02712531.

The decision is important because it establishes that UBS recognized the danger associated with Epstein’s public history.

The bank was not merely unaware of who Epstein was. Its compliance process identified him as a reputational concern significant enough to terminate the credit product.

However, UBS’s treatment of Maxwell was very different.

Maxwell Entered UBS Through a Personal Introduction

Maxwell began moving her financial relationship from JPMorgan to UBS in late 2013 and early 2014.

According to Reuters’ examination of the released banking records, David Wassong, then a partner at Soros Private Equity Partners, introduced Maxwell to UBS in December 2013.

Wassong described Maxwell as one of his best friends and told the UBS contact that she needed a new wealth manager.

In February 2014, correspondence urged UBS to accelerate Maxwell’s transition from JPMorgan before she left on an extended trip. UBS representatives responded that they had reviewed the documents she submitted and had additional questions as the transfer moved forward.

The records therefore indicate that some form of due diligence occurred.

They do not disclose enough information to determine exactly what UBS reviewed, whether Maxwell’s relationship with Epstein was escalated internally, or what conclusions the bank reached about her risk.

JPMorgan Had Already Classified Maxwell as High Risk

Before Maxwell entered UBS, JPMorgan had identified her as a high risk client because of her connection to Epstein.

JPMorgan had managed substantial assets for both Epstein and Maxwell. Internal records from 2011 advised that Maxwell should receive a high risk designation during customer review procedures.

This history matters because Maxwell was not moving to UBS from an ordinary retail banking relationship. She was leaving an institution that had already identified concerns arising from her association with a convicted sex offender.

The released UBS records show that bank employees reviewed transfer documents and asked questions. They do not establish whether JPMorgan’s high risk classification was communicated directly to UBS.

UBS has said that it maintains policies designed to comply with financial regulations. It has not publicly disclosed the complete due diligence file used to approve Maxwell.

UBS Accepted Maxwell While Rejecting Epstein

The timing creates the central contradiction in the UBS record.

In 2014, UBS determined that Epstein’s credit card created an unacceptable reputational risk. During that same period, the bank accepted Maxwell as a private wealth client.

Maxwell’s close association with Epstein was already public. She had been identified in press coverage, civil litigation, and reporting about Epstein’s social and household network.

This does not prove that UBS knew Maxwell had committed a crime. Maxwell was not arrested until 2020 or convicted until 2021.

It does show that UBS treated two deeply connected clients differently. Epstein was rejected because of reputational risk, while Maxwell received extensive wealth management services.

The Scope of Maxwell’s UBS Relationship

UBS did not provide Maxwell with a single checking account.

The bank opened or managed accounts connected with:

Maxwell personally
The TerraMar Project
Ellmax
Pot & Kettle LLC
Max Foundation
Max Hotel Services
Angara Trust
Montpelier Trust
Other personal and property related investment accounts

The accounts contained cash, securities, hedge fund investments, and other financial assets.

EFTA01654901 identifies several of the Maxwell entities connected with UBS, including Ellmax, TerraMar, and Pot & Kettle.

EFTA02728436 contains a financial flow record showing accounts and transfers involving Maxwell entities, JPMorgan, and UBS.

The multiple account structure allowed Maxwell to separate personal assets, operating entities, charitable activity, trusts, and property related transactions.

The existence of multiple accounts is not itself evidence of a crime. Wealthy clients commonly use companies and trusts for investments and estate planning. The significance lies in how the accounts were used, what UBS knew about the client, and how the bank responded as federal scrutiny increased.

The TerraMar Project Accounts

The TerraMar Project was a nonprofit organization created by Maxwell to promote ocean conservation and awareness of the high seas.

Released UBS records show that TerraMar maintained financial relationships through the bank.

The charity helped Maxwell present herself publicly as an environmental advocate and international speaker while her past relationship with Epstein was receiving increased scrutiny.

A UBS account associated with TerraMar does not prove that charitable money was connected with Epstein’s crimes. No released record reviewed for this article establishes that UBS knew TerraMar was being used for an unlawful purpose.

The accounts are relevant because they demonstrate the breadth of UBS’s relationship with Maxwell. The bank was managing more than her personal investments.

The Angara Trust

In September 2016, Maxwell established the Angara Trust.

EFTA00016084 contains a UBS client relationship agreement for the trust. The document identifies Maxwell as the grantor and describes Angara as an irrevocable United States trust.

The agreement listed multiple UBS trust accounts and classified the investment profile as aggressive, with the stated goal of producing income and capital appreciation.

The trustees and financial values are redacted in the released copy.

The document proves that UBS provided trust related financial services for an entity created by Maxwell. It does not establish that the trust held criminal proceeds.

Up to $19 Million Under Management

The released records indicate that UBS managed as much as $19 million for Maxwell.

Her accounts held cash, shares, investment products, and interests in hedge funds. UBS assigned two relationship managers to provide services associated with high net worth clients.

As early as February 2014, Maxwell had nearly $2 million in one UBS account.

The size of the relationship increased over time. By 2016, records show that more than $14 million connected with the sale of Maxwell’s Manhattan residence entered a UBS account.

EFTA00022407 contains financial material concerning Maxwell’s assets and the proceeds associated with that property transaction.

The available record does not resolve how Maxwell originally acquired the Manhattan residence or whether UBS investigated the full history of the property and its value.

Epstein’s Money Had Previously Reached Maxwell

Maxwell’s UBS wealth cannot be examined in complete isolation from Epstein.

Financial evidence from earlier years shows that Epstein transferred substantial amounts to Maxwell through accounts at JPMorgan Chase. Reporting based on forensic accounting in the JPMorgan litigation identified approximately $25 million transferred from Epstein to Maxwell between 1999 and 2009.

That does not mean every dollar later held at UBS came from Epstein.

It does establish that Epstein had been a major historical source of Maxwell’s wealth before she became a UBS client.

By the time UBS accepted her, her financial history included large prior transfers from a convicted sex offender with whom she had maintained a close personal and professional relationship.

The $2.5 Million Transfer to Scott Borgerson

In 2016, Maxwell directed UBS to transfer $2.5 million to Scott Borgerson, whom she married that year.

The transaction demonstrates the degree of control and service UBS provided across her personal and family financial structure.

Borgerson later became a trustee or controller of financial vehicles connected with Maxwell, including accounts involved in the purchase of the New Hampshire property where she was arrested.

A large transfer to a spouse is not automatically suspicious. Its relevance emerges from the later use of trusts and accounts connected with Borgerson while Maxwell was attempting to remain beyond public view.

UBS Continued Moving Money After Epstein’s Arrest

Federal agents arrested Epstein on July 6, 2019.

Sixteen days later, on July 22, UBS transferred $130,000 at Maxwell’s request from a savings account to a checking account. The money was intended to help pay an American Express bill.

Correspondence concerning the credit card payment appears in EFTA00239717.

Other released records show that more than $600,000 arrived in Maxwell’s UBS accounts from Barclays during the weeks following Epstein’s arrest. EFTA00091671 documents those transfers.

These transactions occurred before Maxwell was charged with a crime. UBS was still obligated to follow its customer agreements unless it had a legal or compliance basis to block activity.

The timing nevertheless matters because Epstein’s arrest dramatically increased public and law enforcement attention on his closest associates.

UBS Told Maxwell It Would End the Relationship

On August 1, 2019, UBS informed Maxwell that it intended to stop doing business with her within approximately one month.

EFTA00239754 contains correspondence concerning the termination process.

The available communication did not provide Maxwell with a detailed explanation.

The notice came five days before Epstein was found unresponsive in federal custody and approximately two weeks before UBS received a grand jury subpoena concerning Maxwell.

The termination notice suggests UBS had finally decided the relationship could not continue. Later records show that substantial transactions still occurred after the expected closing period.

The Federal Grand Jury Subpoena

On August 16, 2019, the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York issued a grand jury subpoena to UBS Financial Services concerning Maxwell.

EFTA00079297 contains the subpoena. It sought financial records as part of a federal felony investigation.

EFTA00235805 contains UBS correspondence responding to the request and identifies the subpoena by date and subject.

The subpoena placed UBS on formal notice that federal prosecutors were investigating Maxwell’s financial activity in connection with a serious criminal matter.

UBS supplied information to the government, including records concerning wire transfers. The files indicate that the bank communicated with the FBI during the production process.

The subpoena does not prove that UBS was a subject or target of the investigation. It shows that UBS possessed records investigators considered relevant to Maxwell.

UBS Was Still Communicating With the FBI in November

On November 6, 2019, UBS was still discussing its document production with the FBI.

EFTA01654550 contains material concerning those communications.

Six days later, UBS processed one of the most consequential transfers in the released record.

The Nearly $8 Million Transfer

On November 12, 2019, UBS transferred nearly $8 million from an account held for Montpelier Trust.

Maxwell was identified as the trust’s grantor. Borgerson was among the trustees associated with the account.

The money moved from UBS to a TD Ameritrade account for which Borgerson served as custodian.

EFTA01655199 contains a federal investigative flow chart tracing the movement of money from UBS through additional accounts and trusts.

The transaction occurred:

After Epstein’s arrest
After Epstein’s death
After UBS told Maxwell it intended to end the relationship
After UBS received a federal grand jury subpoena
While UBS was communicating with investigators about its response

These facts do not establish that UBS knew the ultimate purpose of every transferred dollar. They do establish that the bank processed the movement after receiving unusually serious warning signals.

The Money Trail to “Tucked Away”

The nearly $8 million transfer became part of a wider chain of transactions leading to Maxwell’s purchase of a secluded property in Bradford, New Hampshire.

The property was known as “Tucked Away.” It contained a residence on approximately 156 acres and was purchased for about $1.1 million in December 2019.

According to Reuters’ reconstruction of the property transaction, the UBS funds moved through TD Ameritrade and additional trust accounts before money was used to buy the property.

Maxwell used the name Janet Marshall and represented herself as a journalist seeking privacy during the purchase process.

The funds were not wired directly from an account bearing Maxwell’s name to a property titled openly in her name. They moved through a layered structure involving trusts, brokerage accounts, and Borgerson.

Federal agents later found Maxwell at the property in July 2020. During the arrest, agents discovered a mobile telephone wrapped in aluminum foil and security personnel who had reportedly been hired to guard the compound.

The financial trail does not prove that UBS helped Maxwell evade arrest knowingly. It shows that UBS processed a large transfer that became part of the funding chain for the property where she concealed her identity and remained out of public view.

The Human Trafficking Proceeds Alert

A later suspicious activity record suggested that the New Hampshire property may have been purchased with proceeds from human trafficking.

Correspondence discussing that alert appears in EFTA01659441.

The language is significant, but it requires careful interpretation.

A suspicious activity report is a financial intelligence record. It identifies transactions that may warrant investigation. It is not a criminal conviction or a judicial finding that every dollar involved came from trafficking.

The released material does not clearly identify which institution submitted the particular report connecting the property purchase with possible trafficking proceeds.

It therefore cannot be presented as a UBS admission.

The record does prove that federal investigators examining the transaction encountered a formal financial alert linking the property’s funding to possible human trafficking proceeds.

UBS Filed a Suspicious Activity Report After Maxwell’s Arrest

After Maxwell’s July 2020 arrest, UBS filed a suspicious activity report covering more than $18 million in transfers from her UBS accounts to Borgerson.

The transactions occurred between December 2014 and July 10, 2020.

EFTA01648787 contains a summary of suspicious activity reporting associated with the Maxwell financial investigation.

The report covered approximately 29 transfers, according to financial industry reporting.

Filing a suspicious activity report does not mean the bank admitted wrongdoing. Banks are required to report transactions that may involve unlawful activity, attempts to conceal funds, or other regulatory concerns.

The timing raises an obvious question: why were transfers totaling more than $18 million formally identified as suspicious only after Maxwell was arrested?

The public files do not provide UBS’s complete internal monitoring history, so they do not resolve whether earlier alerts, reviews, or reports existed.

Maxwell Still Had Millions at UBS After Her Arrest

An accounting report prepared in connection with Maxwell’s criminal case estimated that she and Borgerson still held approximately $4.1 million at UBS at the end of October 2020.

This was several months after her arrest.

The financial report also estimated their combined wealth at approximately $22.5 million.

The continued presence of UBS assets after the arrest may reflect frozen accounts, investments awaiting transfer, unresolved ownership questions, or the time required to close complex wealth management relationships.

The available evidence does not establish the precise status of every account.

It does show that the financial relationship had not disappeared completely when Maxwell entered federal custody.

UBS’s Cooperation With Investigators

UBS responded to the federal subpoena and supplied records to investigators.

Its productions included:

Account opening documents
Client agreements
Statements
Trust records
Wire transfer records
Communications with Maxwell
Internal correspondence
Information concerning related entities

The availability of these materials helped federal investigators trace Maxwell’s money and reconstruct the property purchase.

Compliance with a subpoena is required by law. It does not erase questions about earlier account approval, monitoring, or transaction decisions.

It does establish that UBS cooperated once investigators formally demanded the records.

The Role of the UBS Wealth Advisers

The released documents identify a private wealth team that handled Maxwell’s accounts and maintained regular communications with her.

Financial industry reporting identified UBS advisers Scott Stackman and Lyle Casriel as members of the team. AdvisorHub’s examination of the records reported that the relationship extended beyond investment management and included personalized services commonly offered to wealthy clients.

The records show advisers communicating about transfers, investment decisions, account structures, and charitable activity.

No evidence reviewed for this article establishes that the advisers participated in Maxwell’s crimes or knew she was helping Epstein abuse minors.

Their role is relevant because UBS’s relationship with Maxwell was actively managed by identifiable professionals. It was not an abandoned or purely automated account.

UBS has stated that it maintains policies and procedures intended to satisfy financial regulations. The advisers did not respond to requests for comment from the financial publication.

Why the Reputational Risk Decision Matters

UBS’s decision to terminate Epstein’s card is one of the most important pieces of evidence in the record.

It demonstrates that the bank’s compliance department understood the risk created by Epstein’s criminal history.

UBS then continued serving Maxwell, whose wealth and public identity were deeply connected to him.

This creates several unresolved questions:

What information did UBS possess about Maxwell in 2014?
Did UBS know JPMorgan had classified her as high risk?
Did UBS investigate the historical source of Maxwell’s wealth?
Did UBS examine the approximately $25 million Epstein had previously transferred to her?
How frequently did UBS update her risk rating?
What did the bank conclude after renewed allegations became public in 2015?
Why did the bank continue processing transactions after its August 2019 termination notice?
Did UBS alert authorities before transferring nearly $8 million in November 2019?
When did UBS first consider the transfers to Borgerson suspicious?
Why did the public record of suspicious activity reporting become visible only after Maxwell’s arrest?

The released evidence does not answer these questions fully.

How UBS Differs From JPMorgan and Deutsche Bank

UBS’s role should not be confused with the much larger banking relationships Epstein maintained with JPMorgan Chase and Deutsche Bank.

JPMorgan Chase served as Epstein’s principal bank for approximately fifteen years and processed extensive cash withdrawals, payments, accounts, and investment activity.

Deutsche Bank accepted Epstein after JPMorgan ended the relationship and managed a network of Epstein entities until 2019.

UBS’s direct relationship with Epstein appears to have been much smaller and shorter. The known product was a credit card that the bank closed within 2014.

UBS’s greater significance lies in its long term management of Maxwell’s assets and its processing of transactions after Epstein’s arrest and after receiving a federal subpoena.

The three banks played different roles:

JPMorgan was a central bank for both Epstein and Maxwell.
Deutsche Bank became Epstein’s principal bank after JPMorgan.
UBS rejected Epstein but continued managing Maxwell’s wealth.

No Public Epstein Related Enforcement Action Against UBS

No public regulatory penalty, survivor settlement, or criminal charge specifically arising from UBS’s Epstein or Maxwell relationships was identified in the records reviewed for this article.

That distinguishes UBS from JPMorgan and Deutsche Bank, which paid major settlements connected with their handling of Epstein.

The absence of a public enforcement action does not prove that every UBS decision was appropriate. It means no regulator or court has publicly imposed liability on UBS for this relationship as of this article’s publication.

Reuters reported that there was no evidence of wrongdoing by UBS or its advisers. UBS declined to answer detailed questions about Maxwell, citing client confidentiality.

What the Evidence Establishes

The available evidence establishes that:

UBS issued Epstein a credit card in 2014.
Epstein’s conviction and sex offender status were public when UBS issued the card.
UBS closed Epstein’s card because its compliance department considered him a reputational risk.
UBS accepted Maxwell as a wealth management client during the same general period.
Maxwell entered UBS after leaving JPMorgan.
JPMorgan had previously classified Maxwell as a high risk client because of her association with Epstein.
UBS conducted some form of due diligence before completing Maxwell’s transfer.
UBS opened personal, business, charitable, investment, and trust accounts for Maxwell.
UBS managed as much as $19 million for Maxwell.
Maxwell used UBS accounts for TerraMar, Ellmax, Pot & Kettle, Max Foundation, and Max Hotel Services.
UBS provided accounts for Angara Trust and Montpelier Trust.
UBS processed a $2.5 million payment to Borgerson in 2016.
UBS moved $130,000 for Maxwell after Epstein’s July 2019 arrest.
More than $600,000 entered Maxwell’s UBS accounts from Barclays during the weeks after the arrest.
UBS informed Maxwell in August 2019 that it intended to end the relationship.
UBS received a federal grand jury subpoena concerning Maxwell on August 16, 2019.
UBS provided wire transfer and account information to investigators.
UBS transferred nearly $8 million from Montpelier Trust in November 2019.
The money moved through additional accounts and trusts connected with Borgerson.
Part of the resulting financial chain funded the purchase of Maxwell’s New Hampshire property.
A suspicious activity record suggested that the property may have been purchased with human trafficking proceeds.
UBS later filed a suspicious activity report covering more than $18 million in transfers associated with Maxwell and Borgerson.
Maxwell and Borgerson still had millions of dollars at UBS after her arrest.

What the Evidence Does Not Establish

The available evidence does not establish that:

UBS participated in Epstein’s sexual abuse.
UBS knowingly financed sex trafficking.
UBS knew Maxwell had committed crimes when it accepted her as a client.
Every dollar in Maxwell’s UBS accounts came from Epstein.
Every dollar transferred to Borgerson represented criminal proceeds.
UBS knew that the November 2019 transfer would help finance Maxwell’s secluded residence.
UBS helped Maxwell hide from law enforcement intentionally.
UBS submitted the particular suspicious activity report that described possible human trafficking proceeds.
A suspicious activity report constitutes proof of a crime.
UBS was a target of the grand jury investigation.
UBS violated a specific court order by processing the November 2019 transfer.
The two UBS advisers managing Maxwell’s accounts knew about or participated in her crimes.
UBS has been convicted, fined, or held civilly liable for its Maxwell relationship.
UBS’s brief credit card relationship made it Epstein’s principal bank.
Every UBS document in the released archive concerns Epstein or Maxwell. Many unrelated people share the Epstein and Maxwell surnames.

Investigative Assessment

UBS’s direct relationship with Epstein was limited but real. The bank issued him a credit card after his conviction and then closed it because of reputational risk.

Its relationship with Maxwell was substantially larger.

UBS accepted her as a high value client, managed personal and business assets, established trust accounts, processed large transfers, and continued moving money as federal scrutiny intensified.

The most consequential period began in July 2019.

Within four months, Epstein was arrested, UBS moved money for Maxwell, Epstein died, UBS received a grand jury subpoena, the bank communicated with the FBI, and nearly $8 million left a Maxwell linked trust. That money became part of the financial chain leading to the secluded property where Maxwell was later arrested.

The records do not prove UBS joined Maxwell’s criminal enterprise. They reveal a compliance contradiction.

The bank had enough information to reject Epstein as a reputational risk in 2014. Yet it continued managing millions for his closest associate and eventual convicted accomplice.

The appropriate classification is:

A documented banking and wealth management relationship involving Epstein and Maxwell, with substantial unresolved questions about client risk assessment, source of wealth review, transaction monitoring, and the timing of suspicious activity reporting.

Key Takeaways

UBS briefly provided Epstein with a credit card after his conviction.
UBS closed Epstein’s card because of reputational risk.
The bank nevertheless accepted Maxwell as a private wealth client.
Maxwell’s relationship involved far more than one personal account.
UBS managed up to $19 million across personal, business, charitable, investment, and trust accounts.
Maxwell moved significant money to Borgerson through UBS.
UBS continued processing transactions after Epstein’s arrest.
The bank received a federal grand jury subpoena concerning Maxwell in August 2019.
UBS processed a nearly $8 million transfer three months after receiving the subpoena.
The money became part of the funding chain for Maxwell’s secluded New Hampshire residence.
Later suspicious activity reporting covered more than $18 million in transfers.
No public finding establishes that UBS knowingly financed trafficking or intentionally helped Maxwell evade arrest.
The evidence does establish that UBS rejected Epstein as a reputational risk while continuing to provide extensive services to Maxwell.

Primary Evidence Sources

EFTA02712531 documents Epstein’s UBS credit card and the bank’s decision to close it because of reputational risk.
EFTA01654901 identifies UBS accounts connected with Maxwell entities including TerraMar, Ellmax, and Pot & Kettle.
EFTA02728436 contains a financial flow record connecting Maxwell entities with JPMorgan and UBS accounts.
EFTA00016084 contains the UBS client relationship agreement for Angara Trust and identifies Maxwell as its grantor.
EFTA00022407 contains financial material concerning Maxwell’s assets and the proceeds associated with her Manhattan property.
EFTA00239717 concerns the transfer used to help pay Maxwell’s American Express balance after Epstein’s arrest.
EFTA00091671 documents deposits from Barclays into Maxwell’s UBS accounts after Epstein’s arrest.
EFTA00239754 contains correspondence concerning UBS’s decision to end its relationship with Maxwell.
EFTA00079297 contains the August 16, 2019 federal grand jury subpoena issued to UBS concerning Maxwell.
EFTA00235805 contains UBS correspondence responding to the subpoena.
EFTA01597239 contains another UBS response concerning the Maxwell subpoena.
EFTA01654550 documents UBS communications with federal investigators during the subpoena response.
EFTA01655199 contains the federal financial flow chart tracing the nearly $8 million UBS transfer toward accounts involved in the New Hampshire property purchase.
EFTA01659441 contains federal correspondence discussing a suspicious activity alert suggesting the property may have been purchased with human trafficking proceeds.
EFTA01648787 contains a summary of suspicious activity reporting covering transfers associated with Maxwell and Borgerson.
EFTA00239470 contains UBS private wealth management correspondence involving Maxwell.

External Sources

PostedDecember 8, 2025