Zinta Braukis
Snapshot
Zinta Braukis is a professional model whose documented connection to Jeffrey Epstein extends beyond a name in a contact list. The public record includes a handwritten letter associated with Braukis, an envelope addressed to Epstein, a January 1, 2005 flight record, her name on court witness materials, and questions posed during two separate civil depositions.
The records do not use one consistent spelling. The envelope uses Zinta Braukis. A court reporter spelled the name Zinta Broukis. Flight log databases index the passenger as Zina Broukis, while the handwritten aircraft record appears to use an abbreviated or difficult to read version of the name. EpsteinWiki previously indexed the person as Zinia Braukis.
EpsteinWiki treats these spellings as one merged identity because the records repeatedly connect the name to the same model, the same passenger manifest, the same Epstein network, and the same relevant period. Zinta Braukis is the primary name because it appears on the envelope and in her public professional record. Zina Broukis, Zinta Broukis, and Zinia Braukis remain searchable aliases.
The evidence places Braukis in Epstein’s personal, travel, housing, gift giving, and modeling orbit. It also preserves a serious allegation that Epstein had sexual contact with her while she was underage and that she received a modeling contract. Epstein refused to answer when questioned about that allegation. The public evidence reviewed for this article does not show that Braukis confirmed it, and no located court ruling adjudicated it.
Braukis should therefore be described as a documented Epstein contact, a passenger in Epstein’s aircraft records, and a possible survivor connected to an unadjudicated underage allegation. She should not be described as an offender, recruiter, or willing participant in Epstein’s crimes without additional evidence.
Name Variants and the Identity Merge
The evidence contains four principal versions of the name.
| Recorded name | Source | Assessment |
|---|---|---|
| Zinta Braukis | Envelope in EFTA00001931, public modeling records, and Epstein v. Rothstein filings | Best supported primary name |
| Zinta Broukis | Sarah Kellen deposition, with the spelling stated aloud for the court reporter | Court transcription variant |
| Zina Broukis | Flight log databases and searchable passenger indexes | Flight record variant |
| Zinia Braukis | Earlier EpsteinWiki indexing | Likely indexing or transcription variant |
The merge is supported by more than phonetic similarity. During Sarah Kellen’s March 24, 2010 deposition, counsel displayed a passenger manifest and immediately asked, “Who is Zinta Broukis?” Counsel then spelled the name Z i n t a, B r o u k i s for the court reporter. The flight log record for January 1, 2005 includes the initials ZB and has been indexed as Zina Broukis. A separate envelope recovered from Epstein’s property identifies Zinta Braukis. The court and evidence records therefore preserve several spellings for a person occupying the same factual position in the Epstein record.
This merge is a reasoned archival conclusion. It is not a claim that every database transcription is exact. Researchers should retain the original spelling whenever quoting a particular document and should search all four variants.
Public Professional Record
Public modeling records identify Zinta Braukis as a professional model. A historical Models.com profile described her as a Los Angeles model represented by Photogenics and Silent Models in New York. A current LA Models profile continues to identify a model by that name.
Her public career record is consistent with the deposition descriptions of Braukis as a model. It does not independently prove that Epstein or Jean Luc Brunel arranged her agency representation.
Public profiles do not establish her birth year. Researchers should not calculate her age from photographs, social media comments, career milestones, or unverified biographical claims. The question of whether she was underage during any encounter with Epstein must remain tied to documentary evidence, not visual guesswork.
The matching name, modeling profession, Los Angeles connection, and New York work make the professional identification persuasive. However, EpsteinWiki should continue to distinguish public career facts from claims about her private history.
The January 1, 2005 Flight Record
The official flight log released by the United States Department of Justice records two consecutive January 1, 2005 segments involving Epstein’s Gulfstream aircraft N909JE.
The first segment ran from TIST, Cyril E. King Airport in St. Thomas, to TQPF, Clayton J. Lloyd International Airport in Anguilla. The next segment ran from Anguilla to Palm Beach International Airport. The handwritten log uses TQPF on one line and appears to transpose the letters on the next line.
The passenger notation on the Anguilla to Palm Beach segment includes ZB alongside Jeffrey Epstein, David Mullen, Jean Luc Brunel, Nadia Marcinkova, Sarah Kellen, and pilot Larry Visoski. Searchable flight indexes render the passenger as Zina Broukis and commonly associate her with both same day segments.
The Epstein Data entity record for Zina Broukis preserves the flight log indexing and its network connections. The official flight log released in United States v. Maxwell provides the underlying government record.
Why the Flight Matters
This was not a routine commercial itinerary. The journey connected St. Thomas, Anguilla, and Palm Beach while placing Braukis with several central figures in Epstein’s network.
Jean Luc Brunel was a modeling agent whose relationship with Epstein became the subject of extensive litigation and criminal investigation. Nadia Marcinkova and Sarah Kellen were later named as protected potential co conspirators in Epstein’s 2007 nonprosecution agreement. Marcinkova was also formally recognized by the FBI as a trafficking victim in later records. These facts make the passenger grouping relevant to any investigation of Epstein’s access to models and young women.
The flight record does not establish what occurred during the trip. It does not prove sexual activity, coercion, recruitment, or criminal conduct by Braukis. Presence on an aircraft is evidence of travel and association, not guilt.
Sleuth Cross Reference
R. Howard Stone’s investigation of Nadia Marcinkova identifies Zina Broukis as sharing two January 2005 flight entries with Marcinkova. Stone places the name among several women who appeared in Epstein’s travel records during the period when Marcinkova frequently traveled with Epstein and Brunel.
That sleuth analysis is useful for identifying the broader passenger pattern. It should not be used to assign Braukis a nationality, role, or legal status that the primary documents do not establish.
The Sarah Kellen Deposition
Sarah Kellen was deposed on March 24, 2010 during civil litigation concerning Epstein and his network. Counsel questioned Kellen about Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, Jean Luc Brunel, Nadia Marcinkova, MC2 Model Management, underage girls, and passenger manifests.
After Kellen was shown a passenger manifest marked as an exhibit, counsel asked whether she recognized it as a manifest for one of Epstein’s planes. Kellen invoked her Fifth Amendment privilege on the advice of counsel.
Counsel then asked, “Who is Zinta Broukis?” Kellen again invoked the Fifth Amendment. Counsel spelled the name for the court reporter as Z i n t a, B r o u k i s.
This exchange is important for three reasons.
- It connects the name directly to a passenger manifest in Epstein litigation.
- It preserves the court spelling Zinta Broukis.
- It supports merging the court name with the passenger indexed as Zina Broukis.
Kellen’s invocation was not an admission about Braukis. A witness may invoke the Fifth Amendment when an answer could create a reasonable risk of self incrimination. The invocation does not prove the premise of counsel’s questions and does not establish misconduct by the person named.
Epstein’s Deposition and the Underage Allegation
In a separate 2010 deposition, attorney Bradley Edwards questioned Jeffrey Epstein about Zinta Braukis. The exchange appears on transcript pages 84 and 85.
Edwards asked Epstein whether he knew Zinta Braukis. Epstein refused to answer. Edwards described her as another model Epstein knew. Epstein again refused to answer.
Edwards then asked whether Braukis was someone with whom Epstein had sex when she was underage. Epstein refused to answer. Edwards followed by asking whether she received a modeling contract from the encounter. Epstein again refused to answer.
The questioning moved immediately into questions about why Epstein and Jean Luc Brunel flew together so often and why Ghislaine Maxwell frequently traveled with them.
The sequence matters because it shows that the allegation was not presented in isolation. It arose in questioning about models, underage girls, aircraft travel, Brunel, Maxwell, and Epstein’s network.
What the Deposition Establishes
The deposition establishes that:
- Edwards raised Braukis’s name under oath in civil discovery.
- Edwards described Braukis as a model Epstein knew.
- Edwards raised a specific allegation involving sex while she was underage.
- Edwards asked whether a modeling contract followed.
- Epstein refused to provide a substantive answer.
What the Deposition Does Not Establish
An attorney’s question is not evidence by itself. Epstein’s refusal prevented the allegation from being tested through his testimony, but it did not convert the allegation into an admission or judicial finding.
The transcript does not reveal the factual basis Edwards possessed for the questions. That basis may have involved a witness statement, travel record, agency information, another deposition, or investigative material. Until that foundation is located, the allegation must be preserved accurately and attributed to the deposition.
Appearance in Epstein v. Rothstein
Braukis’s name also appeared in Epstein v. Rothstein, No. 50 2009 CA 040800 MB, a Florida civil action involving Epstein, attorney Bradley Edwards, and disbarred attorney Scott Rothstein.
The litigation generated extensive discovery about Epstein’s conduct, employees, properties, aircraft, survivors, and associates. Public witness and exhibit materials list Zinta Braukis and identify her as a person considered relevant to the case.
The Epstein v. Rothstein filing corroborates the documented spelling Zinta Braukis. EpsteinWiki should not republish the historical residential address included in the filing.
Appearance on a witness or exhibit list does not prove that Braukis testified. It does not establish that every anticipated allegation was admissible or proven. It establishes that the litigation team considered her relevant enough to identify formally.
The Handwritten Letter and Envelope
A federal evidence release contains a handwritten letter addressed to Epstein and an envelope identifying Zinta Braukis.
The evidence appears in EFTA00001926, EFTA00001927, EFTA00001928, EFTA00001929, EFTA00001930, EFTA00001931, and EFTA00001932.
These identifiers represent several photographs or views associated with one letter and envelope. They should not be counted as seven separate communications.
The envelope supplies the clearest identity evidence. It names Zinta Braukis as the sender and Jeffrey Epstein as the recipient. The letter itself thanks Epstein for gifts, travel, housing, and assistance extended to people close to the writer.
The letter does not display a clearly established date. It refers to Christmas, New Year’s, and events during the previous year, but those references do not establish which year it was written.
The Necklace and Gift Giving
The writer thanks Epstein for a necklace and describes it warmly. The document establishes that Epstein gave her jewelry. It does not identify the necklace’s price, date of purchase, or purpose.
Gift giving is relevant because survivors and witnesses have described Epstein using money, education, travel, housing, clothing, and professional assistance to create trust, dependency, obligation, or access. That broader pattern provides context but does not prove that every gift was part of grooming.
The necklace should therefore be recorded as material support within the relationship. Its meaning cannot be determined without evidence concerning the writer’s age, the timing of the gift, and the nature of her contact with Epstein.
Travel Described in the Letter
The writer describes experiences in the Virgin Islands, West Palm Beach, Las Vegas, and New Mexico. Several of those locations overlap with Epstein’s property and travel network.
Epstein maintained a residence in Palm Beach, owned Zorro Ranch in New Mexico, and controlled properties in the United States Virgin Islands. The January 1, 2005 flight record independently connects the merged Braukis identity to travel from St. Thomas through Anguilla to Palm Beach.
That flight provides important corroboration for the general travel pattern described in the letter. It does not establish that every location mentioned in the letter was visited on that trip.
The letter does not identify Little St. James by name. It does not name Zorro Ranch. It does not specify where the writer stayed in Las Vegas or whether Epstein was present throughout each visit.
Researchers should not turn a reference to the Virgin Islands into a confirmed stay on Little St. James without a corresponding manifest, calendar, photograph, household record, or witness statement. The same caution applies to New Mexico and Zorro Ranch.
The Manhattan Apartment
The writer thanks Epstein for allowing her to stay in an apartment in Manhattan. She describes the space as making her life easier and less stressful and allowing her privacy to work on drawings.
This passage documents housing assistance from Epstein in New York. Housing is significant because it can create financial dependency and give the provider influence over a person’s work, movements, and relationships.
The letter does not identify the apartment. Epstein owned or controlled several New York residential properties used by employees, associates, guests, and young women. Braukis should not be assigned to a specific building without a lease, address record, calendar entry, or other corroborating document.
Assistance for Family and Friends
The writer says Epstein flew her sister to New York for a weekend visit. She also thanks him for helping a friend identified only as Alexandra.
These passages show that Epstein’s support extended beyond the writer and entered her family and social relationships. That can deepen trust and obligation, but the letter alone does not establish exploitation.
The sister and Alexandra should not be publicly identified without reliable evidence and a clear public interest. Nothing in the letter establishes that either person experienced or witnessed misconduct.
The Emotional Tone of the Letter
The letter is grateful and affectionate. The writer credits Epstein with memorable experiences and with encouraging her to perform at her best and think about her life. She thanks him for jewelry, travel, lodging, and assistance involving people close to her.
The positive tone neither proves nor disproves grooming.
People subjected to grooming or exploitation may experience gratitude, loyalty, affection, confusion, fear, dependence, or obligation toward someone who supplies attention and resources. A grateful letter cannot be treated as proof that no exploitation occurred.
The reverse is equally important. Gratitude and a resource imbalance do not prove abuse. That conclusion requires evidence about age, conduct, consent, coercion, and the circumstances of the relationship.
Possible Jean Luc Brunel Connection
The flight record places the passenger indexed as Zina Broukis on the aircraft with Jean Luc Brunel. The Epstein deposition also places the Braukis questions immediately beside questions about Brunel’s frequent travel with Epstein and Maxwell.
Together, those records establish a documented travel overlap and a litigation based reason to investigate whether Braukis’s modeling career intersected with the Epstein and Brunel network.
They do not establish that Brunel recruited Braukis, arranged a contract, controlled her agencies, or participated in misconduct involving her. No agency contract, payment record, booking communication, or direct testimony reviewed for this article proves how any modeling representation was obtained.
Survivor Centered Classification
The underage allegation is specific and serious. It should not be erased merely because Epstein refused to answer or because the public file does not contain Braukis’s own account.
At the same time, the reviewed record does not show Braukis publicly identifying herself as an Epstein survivor. EpsteinWiki should not impose that identity on a person whose own statement has not been located.
The most accurate current classification is:
- Documented Epstein contact
- Model identified in civil litigation
- Passenger in Epstein’s aircraft records
- Recipient of gifts, travel, housing, and other assistance from Epstein
- Subject of an unadjudicated allegation involving possible underage sexual contact
- Possible survivor whose public account has not been located
There is no evidence reviewed for this article that supports classifying Braukis as a co conspirator, recruiter, employee, or offender.
Evidence Timeline
| Date | Event | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| January 1, 2005 | Passenger indexed as Zina Broukis travels in Epstein’s aircraft records from the Caribbean toward Palm Beach | Official flight log, ZB passenger notation, Epstein Data flight indexing |
| Date not established | Writer associated with Zinta Braukis thanks Epstein for a necklace, travel, Manhattan housing, and assistance for family and a friend | EFTA00001926 through EFTA00001932 |
| Before or during 2010 litigation | Zinta Braukis appears in Epstein v. Rothstein witness or exhibit materials | Florida civil court filings |
| March 24, 2010 | Sarah Kellen is shown a passenger manifest and asked, “Who is Zinta Broukis?” | Kellen deposition |
| 2010 | Bradley Edwards questions Epstein about Braukis, possible underage sex, and a modeling contract | Epstein deposition pages 84 and 85 |
| August 2019 | Federal investigators photograph the letter and envelope among Epstein related evidence | Federal evidence image sequence |
What the Evidence Establishes
The current record establishes that:
- Zinta Braukis is the best supported spelling of the primary name.
- Zinta Broukis, Zina Broukis, and Zinia Braukis are relevant searchable variants.
- The name belongs to a professional model with Los Angeles and New York career connections.
- A passenger indexed as Zina Broukis appears in Epstein’s January 1, 2005 aircraft records.
- The relevant flight connected the Caribbean with Palm Beach.
- The passenger grouping included Epstein, Jean Luc Brunel, Nadia Marcinkova, Sarah Kellen, David Mullen, and Larry Visoski.
- Sarah Kellen was asked about Zinta Broukis immediately after being shown a passenger manifest.
- Counsel spelled the surname Broukis for the court reporter.
- Epstein was separately asked whether he knew Zinta Braukis.
- Counsel described Braukis as a model Epstein knew.
- Counsel raised an allegation that Epstein had sex with her while she was underage.
- Counsel asked whether she received a modeling contract.
- Epstein refused to answer each question.
- An envelope identifies Zinta Braukis as the sender of a letter to Epstein.
- The letter documents jewelry, travel, housing, and assistance involving family and a friend.
- The writer referred to the Virgin Islands, West Palm Beach, Las Vegas, and New Mexico.
- The writer thanked Epstein for access to a Manhattan apartment.
- Several EFTA numbers document different images associated with one communication.
What the Evidence Does Not Establish
The current record does not establish that:
- Every spelling in every database is exact.
- Braukis’s birth year is publicly verified.
- She was underage on the January 1, 2005 flight.
- The deposition allegation was adjudicated or proven.
- Epstein’s refusal to answer was an admission.
- Braukis publicly identified herself as a survivor.
- Epstein or Brunel arranged her modeling representation.
- A modeling contract was exchanged for sexual activity.
- Braukis recruited anyone for Epstein.
- Braukis participated willingly in criminal conduct.
- Every trip mentioned in the letter occurred on Epstein’s aircraft.
- The Virgin Islands reference proves a visit to Little St. James.
- The New Mexico reference proves a stay at Zorro Ranch.
- Sexual activity occurred during any documented trip.
- The letter was written while Braukis was underage.
- The Manhattan apartment can be identified from the letter alone.
- Her sister or the friend named Alexandra experienced misconduct.
- A grateful tone disproves or proves grooming.
Questions for Further Investigation
- What was Braukis’s age when she first met Epstein?
- What is the date of the handwritten letter?
- Does an unredacted passenger manifest identify her full name on both January 1, 2005 segments?
- Was the handwritten name on the flight log intended to read Zinta Braukis, Zinta Broukis, or another variation?
- What evidence formed the basis for Bradley Edwards’s underage allegation?
- Did Braukis ever provide a statement, deposition, victim compensation claim, or law enforcement interview?
- Which Manhattan apartment did Epstein provide?
- Who paid the apartment, travel, and modeling expenses?
- Did Epstein or Brunel communicate with Photogenics, Silent Models, LA Models, or any other agency concerning Braukis?
- Was Jean Luc Brunel involved in arranging any contract or booking?
- What were the dates and destinations of the travel described in the letter?
- Do calendars, pilot records, household logs, photographs, or financial records corroborate those trips?
- What was the date, value, and source of the necklace?
- Are there additional letters, emails, telephone messages, or photographs connecting Braukis to Epstein?
- Why was the letter retained among Epstein’s possessions and later photographed by federal investigators?
Key Takeaways
- Zinta Braukis is the primary documented name.
- Zina Broukis, Zinta Broukis, and Zinia Braukis should be merged as aliases for archive and search purposes.
- Flight evidence places the merged identity in Epstein’s aircraft records on January 1, 2005.
- The passenger grouping included Epstein, Brunel, Marcinkova, Kellen, Mullen, and Visoski.
- Sarah Kellen was asked about Zinta Broukis after being shown an Epstein passenger manifest.
- Epstein was separately questioned about Braukis as a model and about alleged sex while she was underage.
- Epstein refused to answer, but refusal is not proof of the allegation.
- A letter connected to Braukis documents gifts, travel, housing, and assistance from Epstein.
- The letter and flight record corroborate a substantial personal connection to Epstein.
- The public record does not justify labeling Braukis an offender or recruiter.
- Survivor centered reporting requires preserving the allegation without imposing an identity Braukis has not publicly claimed.
Related EpsteinWiki Articles
- Jeffrey Epstein
- Jean Luc Brunel
- Sarah Kellen
- Nadia Marcinkova
- Ghislaine Maxwell
- David Mullen
- Larry Visoski
- MC2 Model Management
- The Network of Jean Luc Brunel
- Epstein Aircraft Network
- Flight Logs and Manifests
- Little St. James Operations
- Zorro Ranch
- Epstein’s Manhattan Apartment Network
- Epstein v. Rothstein
- Deposition Transcripts
- Handwritten Letter and Envelope Addressed to Jeffrey Epstein
Primary Evidence
- EFTA00001926, first image in the handwritten letter sequence
- EFTA00001927, additional image associated with the letter
- EFTA00001928, additional view of the handwritten letter
- EFTA00001929, additional image associated with the same evidence sequence
- EFTA00001930, additional view of the letter
- EFTA00001931, envelope identifying Zinta Braukis and Jeffrey Epstein
- EFTA00001932, final image in the letter and envelope sequence
- United States Department of Justice flight log released in United States v. Maxwell
- Epstein v. Rothstein filing identifying Zinta Braukis
- Public compilation of Epstein deposition materials