116 East 65th Street LLC

Type	New York limited liability company. A UBS certification signed in 2014 describes it as “a limited liability company organized in the U.S. with only one shareholder/member that is a disregarded as an entity separate from its owner”1
What it held	A bank’s own file answers the question “What is the purpose for forming the LLC?” with: “The account holds Ghislaine Maxwell’s NY residence and is used to pay real estate taxes and operating expenses.”2
Member and manager	Ghislaine Maxwell, certified to UBS as the sole “Managing Member” and named as the company’s authorised person1; recorded by JPMorgan as the beneficial owner at ”% of Ownership 100”3
Document obtained to evidence domicile	”Operating Agreement”, against a legal-entity value of LLC; state of domicile New York2
Property	A two-unit building on East 65th Street, Manhattan, carried in a title and assessor extract under block 1399, lot 65, year built given as 1910, zoning R8B45
Acquired	Previous transfer information gives a sale date of 6 July 2000 at $4,950,000.00, recorded 18 October 20006
Sold	A title extract’s last-full-market-sale block gives the sale date as 14 April 2016, the seller name as “116 EAST 65TH STREET LLC”, the sale price as $15,075,000.00 and the deed type as “GRANT DEED”, with a conventional mortgage of $9,045,000.00 over thirty years7
Bank of record, to 2014	JPMorgan Chase, Private Bank: a “JPMorgan Classic Business Checking” account in the company’s name89
Decision maker on the bank’s file	”JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN”, under whose single decision-maker record the company’s due diligence report was filed10
Account closed	”Please note this account was closed on 04/15/14”, printed on the statement for the period 1 to 30 April 201411
Bank of record, from 2014	UBS Financial Services Inc., on a Limited Liability Company Certification dated 2/18/141

116 East 65th Street LLC – written on most of the sheets that name it as 116 EAST 65TH ST LLC – was the company through which Ghislaine Maxwell’s Manhattan house was owned and paid for. It is not the Epstein residence at 9 East 71st Street, which was held by a different company and stands six blocks north; the two are separate properties with separate titles and separate banks.

What the company was for is not a matter of inference, because a bank wrote it down. Asked on its own due diligence form to state the purpose of the limited liability company, a JPMorgan private banker answered in a single sentence: “The account holds Ghislaine Maxwell’s NY residence and is used to pay real estate taxes and operating expenses.”² Everything else in the file follows from that – a checking account that paid the taxes, the utilities and the payroll service; a correspondence run in which bankers told the house’s owner and her assistant that the account had gone overdrawn by a few hundred or a few thousand dollars; and, in the same filing cabinet, the bank’s record of who had introduced the client and what the bank decided to do about him.

The documents cited here are overwhelmingly one institution’s produced file, and that is a limit on what the page can say. They do not record how the company was formed, who drafted its operating agreement, or what became of the proceeds of its sale.

The company and what the register shows

The fullest statement of the company’s own structure is not a New York filing but a bank form. On 18 February 2014 a “Limited Liability Company (LLC) Certification” was signed for UBS Financial Services Inc. in the name of 116 East 65th Street LLC. Its operative sentence is a tax characterisation: the company “is a limited liability company organized in the U.S. with only one shareholder/member that is a disregarded as an entity separate from its owner” – the grammar is the form’s, not this page’s.¹ Under the heading “Authorized Persons” the sheet carries one name, Ghislaine Maxwell; under “The undersigned hereby certify that the members and manager of said LLC are as follows:” it gives her again, with “Type of Member: Managing Member”; and it is signed over her printed name and dated by hand 2/18/14.¹

Five years earlier JPMorgan had recorded the same thing in its own vocabulary. Its due diligence report for the company identifies the principal beneficial owner by the last name Maxwell and the first name Ghislaine at ”% of Ownership 100”, gives her citizenship as United States, records that the form of government-issued identification obtained was a passport, and enters the “Related Client A/C” as “Jeffrey Epstein”.³ Against “Source of wealth of the beneficial owner(s)/shareholder(s)” the banker wrote: “Upon opening her account, Ms. Maxwell indicated that she is a real estate professional in NY. She is also the daughter of the late Robert Maxwell.”³ The industry code assigned to the company was “PRIVATE HOUSEHOLDS”, NAIC 814100, and the entity’s net worth was entered as ”$ 10.00 (USD millions)”, the documentation offered for that figure being “Her assets at JPM and our understanding of her balance sheet.”³

The company is also named in a commercial business-background report on Darren Indyke and in a 2016 law-enforcement memorandum listing Epstein companies. This page does not cover either document; both are cited on his.

The addresses the papers give

A company that exists to pay a house’s bills has no office, and the papers give three different addresses for it across seven years.

The earliest statement located for this page that carries the company as the account title – the period 1 August 2007 to 31 August 2007 – is addressed to “116 EAST 65TH ST LLC” at “457 MADISON AVE 4TH FL NEW YORK NY”, the Manhattan office floor from which Epstein’s companies were administered, and names two private-bank service staff, Francisco Villacis and Amy Webb.⁸ By the statement for 1 to 31 December 2009 the address block reads “116A E 65TH ST NEW YORK NY 10065-7007” – the house itself – and the “J.P. Morgan Team” line gives Janet Young and William J Doherty.⁹ The February 2009 due diligence form, written between those two statements, gives the “Primary Corporate Address” as “301 East 66th St., Suite 10B”, with postal code 10065 and country “UNITED STATES”.² The released text layer renders that suite as “108”; the served sheet reads 10B.²

The same East 65th Street address later served a second organisation in the same orbit. Business services cheques drawn by “TERRAMAR PROJECT, INC” give the drawer’s address on consecutive lines as 116 East 65th Street, New York, NY 10065-7007, so the townhouse was the registered address of the TerraMar Project as well as the asset of the company named after it. The released text damages the words of that address differently on each sheet and none of it is quoted here.¹²

February 2009: the bank’s own file on the company

JPMorgan’s “USCG Due Diligence Report - Corporation” for “116 East 65th St., LLC” runs to twelve served sheets and is the single most informative document about the company in the release.¹⁰ Its first sheet records the banker as “Mary C Casey/JPMCHASE” and states: “The DM for this DDR is DM Name -JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN”. Beneath that it reproduces, as every form in the family does, the list of every other due diligence report attached to the same decision-maker record – among them Air Ghislaine, Inc. twice, Darren K. Indyke PLLC, six entries reading “Epstein, Jeffrey”, Freedom Air International, Inc., HBRK Associates Inc., Hyperion Air, Inc., I-Correct.com LLC, Jege, Inc., LYN & JOJO LLC, MAX Foundation, “Maxwell, Ghislaine”, Plan D, Inc., three 2007 Jeffrey E. Epstein insurance trusts and The Haze Trust.¹⁰ The “Security Services Search Date” printed against the company’s own row is 02/02/2009.¹⁰

A separate Private Bank screen in the release lists the company’s account title beside entries for Air Ghislaine Inc and Hyperion Air, Inc and two renderings of Jeffrey E. Epstein’s name, under the headings “Interested Parties” and “Private Bank Accounts”. Every one of those names is damaged in the released text and none of them is quoted here; the sheet is cited for the co-listing rather than for any value on it.¹³ Jeffrey Epstein’s name is therefore on the company’s banking papers in three ways at once: as the index term under which its due diligence report was filed, as an entry in the account list beside its own, and in the narrative the banker typed into the form.

The purpose fields are the part worth reading in full. Against “Have you met with the Principal/Authorized Individual?” and the follow-up asking why not, the banker wrote: “I have not met with Ms. Maxwell but know her advisor, Jeffrey Epstein. Jes Staley has met with Ms. Maxwell.”² Against the question what the purpose of the account was, the answer is “Operational checking account to pay real estate taxes”; the expected source of funding is “Transfer from existing account at JPM” in an approximate amount of “$15,000”; and the expected activity is described as “Payment of real estate operating expenses” at anticipated monthly totals “Below $1MM”.¹⁴

The report’s summary section places the company inside the bank’s wider problem. It records that “Ghislaine Maxwell is an existing client and a DDR was completed on her in 2003”, that “This real estate account was created in the International DDR database in 2006, and this US DDR is to update her information on the US database”, and that “Ms. Maxwell is known to Jes Staley.”¹⁵ Under “Summary Of Findings:” it continues: “Ghislaine Maxwell is an existing client and a referral from Jeffrey Epstein. This account pays her real estate taxes and other expenses related to her NY residence of the same address as the account title.”¹⁵ It then classifies her as a “high profile figure” on two grounds, the second of which is “she is a close friend of Jeffrey Epstein and his office manages her affairs”, and records the decision the bank took about Epstein himself.¹⁵ This page does not cover that decision, the several places in the file where it is written down, or the differences between them; they are the subject of the page on the bank’s due diligence.

The approval block answers “Public/High Profile Figure” with “Yes” and, asked to choose a category, selects “Prominent person who is perceived to be controversial”. It answers “No” to high risk jurisdiction, high risk business and foreign bank, and carries, against labels for banker, senior manager and area head, the names Mary C Casey, Marcus Sheridan and Catherine Keating, each suffixed JPMCHASE. The released text of that sheet prints those labels in one run and the names in another, so the pairing of name to role is taken here from the approval affirmations on the following sheet, which state each role in terms, and not from this one.¹⁶¹⁷

Who signed, and when

The form’s last two sheets carry a document history and a nine-step audit history, and together they give the clearance of a company holding a private house the shape of an institutional act with named hands at each stage.¹⁷

The document was created on 23 January 2009. On that day a user named Javia S Hairston pressed the button “Flag: Security Check has begun” at 11:38:58 and the button “Print” at 11:39:02, four seconds later. Maria A. Couto submitted it for Security Services approval. On 2 February 2009 at 09:03:35 AM Aaron X Radvanyi submitted it for banker approval with “SS Type = Full”. On 11 February at 02:58:46 PM Bonnie K Perry performed “Assign SPN/CAS ID/Tax ID”. On 17 February at 10:26:29 AM Mary C Casey recorded the banker approval. Its affirmation opens “Based on my due diligence and the information provided , I approve and accept sponsorship of”, names the company, and accepts it “as a Client from inception and throughout the client relationship.”¹⁷ On 24 February at 05:39:04 PM Marcus Sheridan approved as senior manager; on 25 February at 01:56:41 PM Bonnie K Perry performed the quality review; and on 26 February at 07:28:35 AM Catherine Keating gave the area head approval, with the form recorded at 07:28:38 AM.¹⁷ The periodic review interval was set at twelve months.¹⁷

The security section lists ten research categories – company information, corporate records, other database searches, internal database search, state court searches, federal court searches, personal particulars, publications, regulatory sanctions and the OFAC control list. The column asking whether further review by the banker is required answers “No” against every one of them. The comment column reads “No additional research necessary.” against six of them, “Information confirmed; details included in the attachment.” against the internal database search, “Publications revealed nothing derogatory.” against publications, and “No records were found.” against the last two.¹⁸ The total cost of the security work is entered as 0.00, and the sheet gives Aaron X Radvanyi against the signature field and 2 February 2009 at 09:03:25 against the date field; the released text prints the labels of that block in one run and their values in another, so no label is quoted here joined to its value.¹⁸

The checking account

The product was ordinary. “JPMorgan Classic Business Checking” is printed at the head of hundreds of sheets in the company’s name, and the account summaries show a small operating balance moving in and out.⁸⁹ The August 2007 statement lists cheques paid numbered from 1114 to 1130, with the sheet’s own asterisks marking where the run breaks – the sort of run a house account produces.⁸

The December 2009 summary is worth setting out because its arithmetic can be checked on its face. It gives a beginning balance of 58,094.60, one deposit or credit of 30,000.00, eight cheques paid at (11,890.51), fourteen payments and transfers at (26,841.18), and an ending balance across twenty-three instances of $49,362.91.⁹ Those five figures reconcile exactly, which is the reason the beginning balance is given here as printed: in this corpus a leading “5” is a common rendering of a dollar sign, and the subtraction is what rules that reading out.

That month’s single credit of $30,000.00 is one of a run of such credits. A series of wires of that amount into this account is set out with its pins on Ted Waitt; this page does not re-cite those sheets, takes no figure from them, and asserts nothing of its own about who ordered the wires beyond what the December 2009 summary shows, which is one credit of that amount in that month.⁹

The account was also fed from the owner’s own savings. On the evening of 11 July 2011 an assistant signing “Dana” asked the banker Janet E Young, copying the service desk, for “another transfer to 116 E. 65th LLC checking”. The message asks that fifty thousand dollars be moved from the client’s own account into the company’s, and closes “Please feel free to call for Ms. Maxwell’s confirmation.”¹⁹ The word “another” is the file’s, and it indicates a practice rather than an event. The sheet carries a manual authorisation grid of the kind a bank completes when it takes an instruction by telephone, with a caller-name line, a call-back line and a signature line.¹⁹

2011 and 2012: the overdrafts

The most distinctive run of documents about the company is a correspondence in which its bankers tell the house’s owner that the account has gone overdrawn. In the released material 47 documents across 49 sheets carry a form of the company’s name together with one of the words overdraft, o/d, “transfer request” or “transfer instructions”; those documents are largely duplicate copies of a much smaller number of exchanges, and the dated events below, not the document count, are what the file records.

On 3 August 2011 at 09:08:38 the banker Gina M Swetra wrote to the Gmax address, copying the service desk and Harry Beller, under the subject “116 EAST 65TH ST LLC -o/d”, giving an overdraft amount of $10,283.68 and explaining that “This account is in overdraft from ACH debits and checks on 8/2-8/3/2011.”²⁰ At 9:12 AM the reply came from a Gmax address at the ellmax.com domain: “Please transfer 100,000 from my savings account. Is there away to have an automatic transfer in place so it never goes below an operating no. Of 20,000?”²⁰ The quotations in this paragraph are read at the served asset image, where “away” and the capital in “Of 20,000?” are the sender’s own; the substance of the reply is a request for a standing instruction to keep the house account above twenty thousand dollars.

On 6 April 2012 at 10:43 AM Janet E Young wrote to the assistant, copying Gmax and the service desk, under a subject line naming the company, and gave the overdraft as “$109.08”; the reply at 11:18 AM attached transfer instructions.²¹

On 24 May 2012 at 9:00 AM a message to the assistant, again under a subject line naming the company, gave an “Overdraft amount: $752.39” and read: “This account is in overdraft from a recent debit on 5/23/12 for $229.73. Please advise how we can assist to cover,”.²² It is signed “Gina Magliocco I Client Service Associate Private Bank I J,P, Morgan” above a Newark, Delaware service address, and directs replies to a shared team mailbox whose local part is pb-service1318, with Janet E. Young named as the alternate contact.²² That mailbox is the explanation for the string that appears on the copy line of every message in this run: it is a Private Bank service queue, not an individual, and it stands on 885 documents across 940 sheets of the released material, only a small number of which concern this company at all.

On 5 June 2012 at 10:11 AM Gina Magliocco wrote to Gmax, copying the assistant and the service desk, that the account was overdrawn by ”$ -3,014.24” and that “This account is in overdraft from a recent ACH debit for AMEX in the amount of $6690.25”.²³ The reply, at 10:50 AM, reads: “Please see attached trans instructions for the 65th st. account.”²³

On 3 October 2012 at 8:37 AM the same banker wrote to the assistant and to Gmax: “Good Morning Ms. Maxwell, Hope you are well. Your account is in overdraft from a recent American Express debit on 10/2/12. Please advise how we can assist to cover, thanks!”, giving the amount as ”$-1,839.00”.²⁴

On 23 November 2012 at 08:48:45 the message reads: “Good Morning Ms. Maxwell, Hope you had a nice holiday! The 115 East 65th St account is in overdraft from two ACH debits on 11/21/12 for ADP and Con Ed NY. Please advise how we can assist to cover, thanks!”, with an “Overdraft amount: $-2,728.74” – the street number in that sentence is the banker’s own, as printed.²⁵ At 9:17 AM the reply came back from Gmax: “Please transfer 50 K to cover it thx”, above a signature block for the TerraMar Project carrying its web and social media links.²⁵ Above the whole exchange the sheet carries a bank annotation reading “11/23/12 9:25am Ghisliane Maxwell” beside the words “Debit:” and “Credit:” – the call-back record, eight minutes after the reply, naming the person the bank spoke to.²⁵

That annotation matters beyond the transaction. Throughout this run the correspondent on the client side is a display name, Gmax, and not a legal name; the bankers address that correspondent as “Ms. Maxwell”; one message comes from an address at the ellmax.com domain; and on this sheet the bank’s own clerk wrote a name against the message when confirming it by telephone. This page does not cover the display name itself, which is treated at Ghislaine Maxwell. What the sheets cited here add is narrower: on this account the bank made the identification itself, contemporaneously, in writing, on the document.

The scale of these sums is the thing the file raises and does not explain. The debits that overdrew the account are a payroll processor, a utility company and an American Express card, and the six overdraft figures the bankers quote run from $109.08 to $10,283.68. They sit against a company whose single asset was sold three years and four months after the last of them for $15,075,000.00. The sequence raises the question of why a house of that value was run through an account that needed a hand-made transfer to clear a shortfall of a hundred and nine dollars, and why the owner’s request of August 2011 for a standing instruction to keep the account above twenty thousand dollars was still being answered by hand-made transfers fifteen months later. The documents cited here answer neither question.

February to April 2014: the move to UBS, and the closing

The JPMorgan account did not lapse; it was closed, and the closing can be dated.

The Limited Liability Company Certification naming Maxwell as managing member was signed for UBS on 18 February 2014.¹ Four days before that, a message of 14 February 2014 in a thread under the subject “Re: MAXWELL: Wealth Management for Ghislaine Maxwell” carries the line “116 East 65th Street Articles of Organization attached.”; a later message in the same family lists an attachment named for the company’s articles of formation.²⁶ So the company’s constitutive papers were going to the new bank before its certification was signed. This page does not follow the UBS relationship beyond that: it is covered at UBS Financial Services Inc. and at the Angara and Montpelier trusts.

The JPMorgan statement for the period 1 April to 30 April 2014 is the last in the series. It is addressed to “116 EAST 65TH ST LLC” at the East 65th Street address, names Janet Young and Gina Magliocco as the J.P. Morgan team, and shows a beginning balance of 0.00, an ending balance of $0.00, and zero instances of activity. Beneath the summary it prints: “Please note this account was closed on 04/15/14.”¹¹

Statements naming the company as the account title, reached by the two date forms used for this page, run from the period beginning 1 August 2007 to the period ending 30 April 2014. The February 2009 due diligence report records that the real estate account had been created in the bank’s international due diligence database in 2006 and that a report on the client herself had been completed in 2003, so the account is older than the earliest statement located here.¹⁵

A business services account statement in the company’s name was later held at UBS, with its card purchases listed under a heading bearing Maxwell’s name. This page takes no figure and no date from that statement; it is cited, with the reason no figure is taken from it, at Epstein storage units.

April 2016: the sale

A title and assessor extract produced in a bank file, run on 26 May 2020, carries the transaction that ends the company’s purpose.⁴

Under the heading “LAST FULL MARKET SALE INFORMATION” its fields give the sale date as 04/14/2016, the seller name as “116 EAST 65TH STREET LLC”, the sale price as $15,075,000.00, the deed type as “GRANT DEED”, the type of sale as “RESALE”, the mortgage amount as $9,045,000.00, the mortgage loan type as “CONVENTIONAL” and the term as thirty years.⁷

A second transaction block in the same extract gives the recording date as 28 April 2016, the document number as 147513, the title company as “COMMONWEALTH LAND TITLE INS” and the lender as “CITIBANK NA”; a parallel block later in the extract gives the deed type as “BARGAIN & SALE DEED”.²⁷ The purchasers are named in the extract and are not named here: they are private individuals who bought a house in an arm’s-length resale, and nothing in the released material gives them any other role.

The extract also gives the acquisition. Under the heading “PREVIOUS TRANSFER INFORMATION” it records a sale date of 6 July 2000 at a sale price of $4,950,000.00, a sale code of “FULL”, a type of sale of “RESALE”, a recording date of 18 October 2000 and a recording book and page of 3176 and 821. Those figures are read in the released text only, which prints the price with full stops where the separators belong and the sale date without separators at all.⁶ Between those two dates the company held the building for just under sixteen years, and the difference between the two prices is a little over ten million dollars.

The historical tax assessor tables in the same extract show the owner of record through the 2000s under truncated renderings of the company’s name – “116E 65 STL”, “116E 65 ST L”, “116E 65 ST LLC” and “116 E 65 STLLC” – with the absentee-owner field reading “ABSENTEE (MAIL AND SITUS NOT=)”, the database’s way of saying that the owner’s mailing address was not the property.²⁸ From the 2017 tax year the owner fields carry the purchasers’ names and the field reads “OWNER OCCUPIED”.²⁸ The building is described as a duplex of two units, one building, twenty feet of frontage on a hundred-foot lot, zoned R8B, with the year built given as 1910.⁵

What the documents cited here do not establish

This page is built almost entirely on one bank’s produced file and one title extract produced inside another. It does not establish when or by whom the company was formed, the terms of its operating agreement, who paid the 2000 purchase price, how the 2016 sale proceeds were applied, or whether the company still exists. No filing of the company with the State of New York is read for this page.

Nothing read for this page records a response from any of the bankers named on it. No search outside the released files was made for one.

No account or routing value is reproduced here. No identification or tax reference number is reproduced here. No telephone or facsimile number is reproduced here.

Where the released text layer damages a quoted string, the damage is left as printed and said to be the text layer’s. The due diligence report, the title extract, the August 2007 statement and the overdraft messages of 3 August 2011, 24 May 2012, 5 June 2012, 3 October 2012 and 23 November 2012 were each read at the served asset image at the native resolution of 96 pixels per inch; the 2014 UBS certification was read the same way and is a scan of a signed sheet. The remaining statements and messages were read in the released text only, and the arithmetic of the December 2009 summary is the only internal check this page performs on a figure it did not read at an image.

The searches run

The figures in this section were taken on 26 October 2026 against the desk’s full-text index of the released material, 2,925,025 sheets across 1,425,556 documents drawn from several production routes. That index is the material released, not the whole of the files, so every figure is a floor.

The company’s name was searched as seven separate forms, each run on its own and each with a null control. The forms, with the documents and sheets each reached: “65th st llc” 1,010 documents across 1,473 sheets; “65th street llc” 158 across 429; “65 street llc” 13 across 13; “65 st llc” 10 across 78; “65th llc” 8 across 9; and two forms that exist only because the released text is damaged, “166 e 65th llc” at 1 document across 2 sheets and “6511 st llc” at 1 across 1. Their union is 1,176 documents across 1,986 sheets. A null control returned nothing. Within that union, the longer forms “116 east 65th st llc” and “116 east 65th street llc” reach 982 and 144 documents respectively, so the shorter forms are the load-bearing ones and the registered style is not the majority spelling.

Searched as a street address rather than as a company – adding the abbreviations, the spelled-out forms, the unit letter and six renderings in which the released text damages the words “east” or “65th” – the union is 1,638 documents across 3,078 sheets, of which 505 documents carry the address without any form of the company’s name. The largest single sheet in the company-name union carries 6,261 characters, so no container sheet is inflating co-presence in these figures.

Of the company-name union, 1,003 documents carry the string JPMorgan and 566 carry the product name “Classic Business Checking”; 48 carry UBS and 25 carry Fedwire. No sheet reached by those forms carries the phrase “certificate of formation”.

Two strings that look as though they might be keys to this company’s file were measured separately and are not. The service-queue string on the copy line of the overdraft messages stands on 885 documents across 940 sheets, of which 11 also carry a form of the company’s name: it is a Private Bank team mailbox used across the bank’s correspondence and not a code attached to this company. The attachment name “VividMinds” stands on 52 documents across 61 sheets and on none that carries a form of the company’s name; those attachments belong to transfer requests drawn on a TerraMar Project account, which is a different account with a different payee, and they are not evidence about this company.

Related

• Ghislaine Maxwell
• Jeffrey Epstein
• JPMorgan’s due diligence on Epstein and Maxwell
• JPMorgan Chase
• UBS Financial Services Inc., Private Wealth Management
• The Angara and Montpelier trusts
• Jes Staley
• Ted Waitt
• Darren Indyke
• Eric Roth
• The TerraMar Project
• Epstein storage units
• 9 East 71st Street

Footnotes

Footnotes

1. UBS Financial Services Inc. “Limited Liability Company (LLC) Certification” in the name of 116 East 65th Street LLC, one sheet, signed over the printed name Ghislaine Maxwell and dated by hand 2/18/14, the figures written as month, day and year. Read at the served asset image at 96 pixels per inch; the sheet is a scan of a signed original and carries the printed stamps SDNY_GM_00020431 and EFTA_00131051, the word CONFIDENTIAL, the printed page number 21 and the line “Page 1 of 1”. The quoted characterisation, the “Authorized Persons” entry and the “Type of Member: Managing Member” line are each read from that image. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01252363 p.1 ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶

2. J.P. Morgan Private Bank “USCG Due Diligence Report - Corporation” for “116 East 65th St., LLC”, twelve served sheets; this sheet carries the “Primary Corporate Address” block and the “Introduction / Financial Information” answers, including the purpose of the limited liability company and the sentence about the account holding the residence. Read at the served asset image at 96 pixels per inch, where the suite number reads 10B; the released text layer renders it 108. The served asset for this document reproduces the form as monospace text rather than as a photograph of the printed form, and carries no visible Bates stamp; the per-sheet identifier printed at the foot in the released text is the only stamp. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01594231 p.3 ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶

3. The same report, beneficial-owner sheet: “Last Name: First Name: Maxwell Ghislaine”, ”% of Ownership 100”, “Form of Govt Issued ID Obtained Passport”, “Related Client A/C Jeffrey Epstein”, “Citizenship UNITED STATES”, the source-of-wealth answer quoted in the text, “Entity/Client Net Worth: $ 10.00 (USD millions)”, the documentation answer “Her assets at JPM and our understanding of her balance sheet.”, and the industry entries “PRIVATE HOUSEHOLDS” and “NAIC Code: 814100”. Read in the released text. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01594231 p.4 ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴

4. Title, assessor and deed extract produced in a bank file, headed “CLEAR 05262020”, seventeen served sheets. The owner information, property information and assessor blocks give the parcel as “Formatted APN: 1399-0065”, block number 1399 and lot number 65. Read in the released text; the purchasers’ names are not reproduced. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01654664 p.1 ↩ ↩²

5. The same extract, property-characteristics block: “Number of Buildings: 1”, “Year Built: 1910”, “Number of Units: 2”, with the land use given as DUPLEX, zoning R8B, land square footage 2000, frontage 20 and depth 100 on the first sheet. Read at the served asset image at 96 pixels per inch for the characteristics block; the served asset reproduces the report as text and carries no visible Bates stamp. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01654664 pp.1, 3 ↩ ↩²

6. The same extract, “PREVIOUS TRANSFER INFORMATION” block: a sale date whose nine digits the released text runs together without separators, read as 07/06/2000, “Sale Price: $4.950.000.00”, “Sale Code: FULL”, “Type of Sale: RESALE”, “Recording Date: 10/18/2000”, “Recording Book: 3176”, “Recording Page: 821”. Read in the released text, which prints the price with full stops for the thousands separators and the sale date without separators. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01654664 p.4 ↩ ↩²

7. The same extract, “LAST FULL MARKET SALE INFORMATION” block: sale date 04/14/2016, seller name “116 EAST 65TH STREET LLC”, sale price $15,075,000.00, deed type “GRANT DEED”, type of sale “RESALE”, mortgage amount $9,045,000.00, loan type “CONVENTIONAL” and a term of 30 years. Read at the served asset image at 96 pixels per inch, where both money figures print with commas. The released text of this document renders the sale price in one place with the letter O standing for zero and in another with full stops where the thousands separators belong. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01654664 p.3 ↩ ↩²

8. J.P. Morgan statement, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., for the period “August 1, 2007 through August 31, 2007”, account title “116 EAST 65TH ST LLC”, product “JPMorgan Classic Business Checking”, addressed to “457 MADISON AVE 4TH FL NEW YORK NY” and naming two private-bank service staff, Francisco Villacis and Amy Webb, on consecutive lines. The cheque numbers given are the first and last in the “Checks Paid” table on the same sheet, which carries fourteen numbered entries, three of them marked with an asterisk. One of several served sheets of a longer statement; the other sheets were not read. Read at the served asset image at 96 pixels per inch. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01563681 p.1 ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴

9. J.P. Morgan statement, “For the Period 12/1/09 to 12/31/09”, account title “116 EAST 65TH ST LLC”, addressed to “116A E 65TH ST NEW YORK NY 10065-7007”, product “JPMorgan Classic Business Checking”, J.P. Morgan team given on consecutive lines as Janet Young and William J Doherty, footed “Page 1 of 8” and “Confidential Treatment Requested by JPMorgan Chase”. That “Page 1 of 8” is the statement’s own folio; the document cited here is one served sheet and the statement’s remaining folios are not in it. The account summary gives the five figures quoted in the text; the released text renders the account title “116 EAST 6511-I ST LLC”. Read in the released text. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01516682 p.1 ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵

10. The same report, first sheet: “USCG Due Diligence Report - Corporation”, “DDR Name: 116 East 65th St., LLC - DDR Status: Process Completed”, “Banker: Mary C Casey/JPMCHASE”, the decision-maker line, and the list of associated due diligence reports. The “Security Services Search Date” column, including the date 02/02/2009 against the company’s own row, continues onto the second sheet. Read in the released text. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01594231 pp.1, 2 ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴

11. J.P. Morgan statement, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., “For the Period 4/1/14 to 4/30/14”, account title “116 EAST 65TH ST LLC” at “116A E 65TH ST NEW YORK NY 10065-7007”, product “JPMorgan Classic Business Checking”, J.P. Morgan team given on consecutive lines as Janet Young and Gina Magliocco, beginning balance 0.00 and ending balance $0.00 across zero instances, and the sentence “Please note this account was closed on 04/15/14”. One served sheet, read in the released text. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01564530 p.1 ↩ ↩²

12. Business services account cheques drawn by “TERRAMAR PROJECT, INC” showing the drawer’s address on consecutive lines as 116 East 65th Street, New York, NY 10065-7007. Read in the released text, which renders the word EAST variously as CAST, FAST and LAST across the sheets of this document and the word STREET as STRUT; the address is established by the union of those renderings and not by any single one. Several served sheets of a long statement container; only the drawer address blocks were read. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01596388 pp.31, 49, 57 ↩

13. J.P. Morgan Private Bank client screen listing, under the headings “Interested Parties” and “Private Bank Accounts”, an account name the released text renders “..6 EAST 6511-. ST LLC” together with “AIR GH:SLAINT INC”, “HYPER:0N AIR, INC” and two renderings of Jeffrey E. Epstein’s name. One served sheet, read in the released text; the damaged characters are the text layer’s and the sheet is cited for the co-listing only. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01583571 p.1 ↩

14. The same report, “Transaction Profile/Expected Account Activity” sheet: “Operational checking account to pay real estate taxes”, “Transfer from existing account at JPM”, “$15,000”. The anticipated monthly total “Below $1MM” and the sentence “Payment of real estate operating expenses” stand on the following sheet. Read in the released text. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01594231 pp.5, 6 ↩

15. The same report, summary sheet: the three sentences about the 2003 report, the 2006 international database entry and Jes Staley, and the “Summary Of Findings:” passage. Read at the served asset image at 96 pixels per inch, which carries the whole passage; the released text layer for this sheet stops mid-sentence and the remainder of the sentence appears at the head of the next sheet’s text. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01594231 p.8 ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴

16. The same report, approval-information sheet: the field “Public/High Profile Figure” and the value “Yes”, the category “Prominent person who is perceived to be controversial”, the three “No” answers, and the names Mary C Casey, Marcus Sheridan and Catherine Keating, each suffixed JPMCHASE, printed in one run after the field labels “Banker:”, “LE/OU:”, “Senior Manager:” and “Area Head:” rather than beside them. Read in the released text. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01594231 p.10 ↩

17. The same report, approvals and history sheet: the banker, senior manager and area head approval affirmations with their timestamps, the “Annual/Periodic Review Due in: 12 months” line, the document history, and the nine-step audit history. Read at the served asset image at 96 pixels per inch. The first audit step’s timestamp runs onto the following sheet and is not given here. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01594231 p.11 ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵

18. The same report, security-services sheet: ten research categories against which the column asking whether further review by the banker is required answers “No”, the comments “No additional research necessary.” against six of them, “Information confirmed; details included in the attachment.” against the internal database search, “Publications revealed nothing derogatory.” against publications and “No records were found.” against the last two, and the total cost 0.00. The released text of this block prints the labels “Total Costs:”, “Signed by:” and “Dated:” in one run and the values 99/31167, $0.00, “Aaron X Radvanyi” and “02/02/2009 09:03:25 AM” in another, so no label is quoted here joined to a value. Read at the served asset image at 96 pixels per inch; the preceding sheet was read in the released text only and carries the line “Full DDR originally created in ICG. Last report signed off by Security Services on 1/23/08.” https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01594231 p.7 ↩ ↩²

19. Electronic mail on one served sheet carrying the fields “From: Dana”, “Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 7:00 PM”, “To: Young, Janet E”, “Cc: PB-Service1318” and “Subject: Transfer”, on a sheet whose facsimile header gives Jul-12-2011 11:23 AM and JPMorgan Chase and which carries a manual authorisation grid. One served sheet, read in the released text. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01579883 p.1 ↩ ↩²

20. Electronic mail on one served sheet, read at the served asset image at 96 pixels per inch; the sheet is a scan of a faxed printout. The underlying message carries the fields “From: Swetra, Gina M”, “To: Gmax; Harry Beller”, “Cc: PB-Service1318” and “Sent: Wed Aug 03 09:08:38”, and the overdraft figure; the reply above it is headed with a Gmax address at the ellmax.com domain, the send time “Wednesday, August 03, 2011 9:12 AM” and “To: Swetra, Gina M”. The sheet’s facsimile header gives Aug-03-2011 10:03 AM and JPMorgan Chase. The released text renders the dollar sign of the overdraft figure as the letter S, the subject line of the underlying message as “116 FAST 65TH ST LLC”, the year as “20l1” and the final character of the sender’s mailbox name as a lower-case L; the local part is therefore not reproduced here, and the quotations above are given as the image prints them. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01579866 p.1 ↩ ↩²

21. Electronic mail under a subject line naming the company: the underlying message carrying “Sent: Friday, April 06, 2012 10:43 AM”, “To: Dana” and “Cc: Gmax; PB-Service1318” with the overdraft figure, and above it the reply carrying a Dana address at the ellmax.com domain, “Sent: Friday, April 06, 2012 11:18 AM”, “To: Young, Janet E” and “Cc: Gmax; PB-Service1318”, with an attachment named on the sheet. The sheet’s facsimile header gives Apr 06 2012 11:28 AM and JPMorgan Chase, and the name Young, Janet E stands above the message block. Two served sheets, read in the released text, which renders the sender’s domain with an i for the first l. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01589034 pp.2, 3 ↩

22. Electronic mail on one served sheet carrying the fields “Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2012 9:00 AM”, “To; Dana” — the semicolon is the sheet’s — and “Cc: PB-Service1318”, and giving “Overdraft amount: $752.39” and the sentence about the debit of 5/23/12, with the signature block of a client service associate in the Private Bank and an alternate contact line. Read at the served asset image at 96 pixels per inch. The served asset reproduces the message as monospace text and carries no visible Bates stamp. The team mailbox is given by its local part only; the released text renders its domain with an i for the j. This exchange exists in more than one produced copy and only this one is cited. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01588950 p.3 ↩ ↩²

23. Electronic mail under a subject line naming the company: the underlying message carrying “From: Magliocco, Gina X”, a send time printed “Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2012 10:11 AM” and “To: Gmax”, with “Cc: Dana; PB-Service1318”, and giving the overdraft figure as “o/d amount: $ -3,014.24” and the ACH debit figure, and above it a reply from Dana addressed “To: Magliocco, Gina X; Gmax” whose own send line is not on the served sheet cited here. One served sheet, read at the served asset image at 96 pixels per inch, where the released text layer loses the minute digits of the send time and renders o/d as “old”. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01588818 p.1 ↩ ↩²

24. Electronic mail under a subject line naming the company: the underlying message carrying “From: Magliocco, Gina X”, “Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2012 8:37 AM”, “To: Dana; Gmax” and “Cc: PB-Service1318”, with the quoted greeting, the American Express debit of 10/2/12 and the figure “o/d amount: $-1,839.00”, and above it a reply from Dana timed “Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2012 10:18 AM”, a send line that is not on the served sheet cited here. One served sheet, read at the served asset image at 96 pixels per inch. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01588918 p.1 ↩

25. Electronic mail under a subject line naming the company: the underlying message carrying “From: Magliocco, Gina X”, “To: Gmax”, “Cc: PB-Service1318” and “Sent: Fri Nov 23 08:48:45 2012”, with the quoted greeting, the two ACH debits of 11/21/12 for ADP and Con Ed NY and “Overdraft amount: $-2,728.74”; and above it a reply carrying “From: Gmax”, “Sent: Friday, November 23, 2012 9:17 AM”, “To: Magliocco, Gina X” and “Cc: PB-Service1318; Dana”, reading “Please transfer 50 K to cover it thx” above a TerraMar Project signature block. The annotation “11/23/12 9:25am Ghisliane Maxwell”, beside the words “Debit:” and “Credit:”, stands at the head of the same sheet and spells the forename as given. One served sheet, read at the served asset image at 96 pixels per inch. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01588905 p.1 ↩ ↩² ↩³

26. Electronic mail in a UBS run under the subject “Re: MAXWELL: Wealth Management for Ghislaine Maxwell”. The message of “Friday, February 14, 2014 6:05 PM” carries the line “116 East 65th Street Articles of Organization attached.”; a later message in the same family names an attachment for the company’s articles of formation alongside a spreadsheet. One served sheet, read in the released text; no correspondent’s address is reproduced here. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00235862 p.1 ↩

27. The same extract, transaction and mortgage block: “Recording Date: 04/28,2016”, “Document Number: 147513”, “Title Company: COMMONWEALTH LAND TITLE INS”, “Lender Name: CITIBANK NA”, “Mortgage Deed Type: MORTGAGE DEED”, and, in the parallel block on a later sheet, “BARGAIN & SALE DEED”. Read in the released text, which renders the recording date with a comma for the second slash and the mortgage date and due date with other substituted separators. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01654664 pp.4, 14 ↩

28. The same extract, “HISTORICAL TAX ASSESSOR INFORMATION” tables by tax year, carrying the owner of record for the 2000s as “116E 65 STL”, “116E 65 ST L”, “116E 65 ST LLC” and “116 E 65 STLLC” with the absentee-owner field “ABSENTEE (MAIL AND SITUS NOT=)”, and the 2017 tax year carrying the purchasers with “OWNER OCCUPIED”. A deed record later in the same extract gives the owner as “116 E 65 ST L L C”. Read in the released text; the purchasers’ names are not reproduced. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01654664 pp.4, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15 ↩ ↩²