Epstein Data Wiki

Alison Moe

Properties2
tagsperson, prosecutor, sdny, grand-jury, jpmorgan, ubs, maxwell-prosecution, 2019-2021
aliasesAlison Moe, Alison G. Moe, Moe, Alison, AUSA Moe, Ms. Moe, Allison Moe

15 min read

Named on the documents asAlison Moe, with the title Assistant United States Attorney, Southern District of New York; Ms. Moe and AUSA Moe in correspondence and argument; Moe, Alison in mail headers; Allison Moe with a double l, the misspelling of people writing about her1
Size of the file824 documents on the exact phrase; 890 over the union of forms. ⚠⚠ AND THE FLOOR IS NOW PROVEN SHORT BY A MEASURED MINIMUM. A dataset-12 study of 2026-09-19 found that the government’s signature block is redacted RECIPROCALLY between productions: in one dataset the producer bars the U.S. Attorney’s surname and prints the line prosecutors in full; in three others the same sheets print the U.S. Attorney and bar the line prosecutors. Each copy hides what the other shows. Her name is therefore absent from a block of documents that no form of her name, surname included, can reach. The understatement is proved at a minimum of sixteen documents and is bounded above by 120, the whole barred-block population. The figure on this page is a floor in the strict sense and should never be quoted as her reach. See _desk/gate-reports/20260919T031200Z-dataset12-name-bar-test.md. The misspelled form adds 8 documents the correct spelling never reaches12
The acts this page is built onHer name is the AUSA name printed on Jeffrey Epstein’s arrest warrant3 · She signed the grand jury subpoenas to his banks, four rounds to JPMorgan entities across 2019 and one to UBS in 2020, and JPMorgan was still producing Epstein and Maxwell account records to her in November 202145 · She asked the FBI to pull what JPMorgan had filed on Epstein’s accounts, and got a count back6
The shape of her roleShe is the prosecutor who followed the money. The documents that name her are overwhelmingly subpoenas, bank productions and records certifications, not courtroom argument
What no document read here showsAny charging decision of hers; what she concluded from any bank record; why the financial investigation continued into 2021; or any dealing between her and any victim
Covered elsewhere on this wikiGhislaine Maxwell · Audrey Strauss · JPMorgan Chase

Alison Moe was an Assistant United States Attorney in the Southern District of New York, one of the prosecutors on the Epstein and Maxwell cases. She is a career federal prosecutor acting in her official capacity throughout everything on this page, and nothing here is a suggestion of wrongdoing by her.

What makes her worth a page is what her name is attached to. It is on the warrant that arrested Jeffrey Epstein, and it is at the top of the correspondence in which the largest bank in the United States handed over his account records. The financial trail in this release runs through her name.

The warrant

Jeffrey Epstein was arrested on 6 July 2019. The arrest warrant in the release is a form AO 442 in United States of America v. Jeffrey Epstein, dated 2 July 2019, issued at New York by United States Magistrate Judge Barbara Moses. The field at the top of the form reading AUSA Name & Telno: gives Alison Moe. The case number is the rubber stamp 19 CRIM 490.3

The offences the warrant describes are set out in two lines:

Title 18, United States Code, Section 371 (sex trafficking conspiracy) Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1591(a), (b)(2), and (2) (sex trafficking of minors)3

The warrant is signed and issued but was never returned. The magistrate’s handwritten signature is on the issuing rule, over a court seal; every field of the form’s Return section is empty: no date received, no date of arrest, no place, no arresting officer. It is the instrument, not the record of its execution.

⚠ The warrant prints her direct telephone line. It is not reproduced here. The two copies disagree about one digit; the images are identical in that field and the difference is an extraction error in one of them, not a fact about the documents.

The banks

This is the part of her file that is largest and least reported, and it is almost entirely correspondence.

JPMorgan. A letter of 23 November 2021 from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP to her, on behalf of JPMorgan Chase, lists the subpoenas it is answering. There are four rounds of them:

August 11, 2019 Grand Jury Subpoenas to JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Chase Bank USA, N.A., and J.P. Morgan Securities LLC; August 16, 2019 and September 3, 2019 Grand Jury Subpoenas to JP Morgan Chase; October 9, 2019 Grand Jury Subpoenas to JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. And All Affiliates4

Two things about that letter are worth stating separately. The first is its date: the subpoenas are from 2019 and the bank was still producing documents to her in late 2021, more than two years later, and in response to an emailed request she had made the day before. The second is what it says the productions contained. The letter describes account documentation in the names of ASW Holdings, Inc., Financial Trust Company, Inc., Jeffrey Epstein, and Ghislaine Maxwell.4

The letter is marked FOIA CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT REQUESTED and is subject to a protective order, a red overprint naming paragraphs 7, 8, 9, 10, 15 and 17, and the firm asks that confidential treatment be accorded to it because it “contains confidential business information concerning JPMorgan.”4 ⚠ The four accounts are not treated alike: three of the four account numbers are redacted on the sheet and one is printed in the clear. None is reproduced on this page.

UBS. On 10 July 2020 UBS Financial Services Inc. answered a grand jury subpoena dated 29 June 2020, addressed to her and captioned “Ghislaine Maxwell, et al.”, producing account opening documents and account statements in an encrypted file. UBS asked that the documents be kept confidential and that it be given advance notice of any decision to disclose them.5 The account identifier in that letter is not reproduced here; UBS itself printed it in a self-masked form, and it is not redacted by the producer. Two other prosecutors were copied, Alex Rossmiller and Maurene Comey, both named.

What the FBI found in FinCEN

On 2 December 2019 she asked an FBI special agent for what JPMorgan had filed with the government about Epstein’s accounts. The request is three sentences long and one of them is about Thanksgiving. The name of the filing type she asked for is barred on the sheet.6

The reply came on 5 December, and it is worth reading with its redactions in place, because they fall on the same word each time:

I queried the FinCen database utilizing ▮ and CTRs filed by JP Morgan Chase which reference Epstein’s SSN. The query produced 14 ▮ (8 with attachments) and 89 CTRs.6

The agent copied the files to a DVD with a document index. The 14 counts the barred word, not the CTRs, so the two figures are counts of two different things: fourteen filings of a type the government has redacted, eight of them with attachments, and eighty-nine currency transaction reports.6

⚠ The bars were measured at the image and they are bars, not extraction failures: solid, hard-edged and opaque, with no glyph surviving underneath. The filing type is redacted in all three places it appears in this exchange, and this page does not guess at it. What is stated here is what is legible: the counts, the bank, and the database.6

The subpoenas, as the recipients describe them

Fourteen documents in the release carry fifteen business-records certifications naming her as the signing prosecutor, under Rules 902(11) and 803(6) of the Federal Rules of Evidence. ⚠ Most are not executed. At least nine of the fifteen are blank template forms with the recital printed and the fields never filled in; six are completed. Each recites:

I am in receipt of a Grand Jury Subpoena, dated ▮, and signed by Assistant United States Attorney Alison Moe, requesting specified records of the business named below.7

The dates recited are 2 May, 10 June, 14 June, 10 July, 23 July, 7 August and 9 August 2019, and then one outlier, 26 March 2021.7

Where a business is named, it is named in the clear, and the four that are tell you what the investigation was doing. Two are corporate registries: the Office of the Lieutenant Governor of the U.S. Virgin Islands, Corporations and Trademarks, served three times, and the Division of Corporations in Delaware. One is a Florida credit union. The fourth is the Interlochen Center for the Arts, a Michigan arts academy, and it is the outlier: 26 March 2021, more than eighteen months after Epstein died.7

⚠ This page does not say what any subpoena sought or what any recipient produced, because the certifications do not say. Where no business is named on a certification, the field was never filled in. It was not blacked out.

The bail argument

The one piece of courtroom argument in her name that this page could find is not in a transcript. ⚠ Nor is it three sources. A single newspaper article describing the July 2020 bail hearing was filed as one court exhibit, and that exhibit appears in three separate productions in the release. It is one report reproduced three times, not three reports, and it corroborates nothing but itself. It quotes her:

She is good at living under an assumed identity. There really can be no question that she can live in hiding.8

The point she was making was about how the house was bought. The reports say she told the court that when Maxwell bought a home in Bradford, New Hampshire in December 2019, the buyers introduced themselves to the estate agent as “Scott and Janet Marshall.”8

⚠ This section rests on press reporting and the desk found no transcript of the hearing in the release. A newspaper’s rendering of what a prosecutor said in court is a weaker record than a document, and it is cited as a report of her argument, not as a transcript.

Identification

Union 890 documents, and it is a floor.

formdocumentsoutside the base set
"Alison Moe"824base
"Ms. Moe"12628
"Moe, Alison"3816
"amoe"1612
"Alison G. Moe"139
"Allison Moe"118
"AUSA Moe"95

The double-l Allison Moe is the author’s-own-misspelling mechanism again, and it reaches 8 documents the correct spelling never does.1

Bounds: the bare surname Moe returns 2,222 and was NOT used as an identifier, because it is a common surname and, in a corpus of scanned documents, a three-letter token that OCR produces by accident. No figure on this page rests on it. The intersection of her name with "Ghislaine Maxwell" is 726.2

Footnotes

  1. Counts on the authoritative pages_fts route, scoped text_content, each form run as an exact phrase, identifier sets compared by set difference against the "Alison Moe" base. Titles as her own signature blocks print them. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  2. Same route. Base 824; union 890; intersection with "Ghislaine Maxwell" 726. The bare surname Moe (2,222) was not used at any point, for the reason given above. ↩ ↩2

  3. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01301626 p. 1 and https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01305108 p. 7, two copies of the form AO 442 arrest warrant in United States of America v. Jeffrey Epstein, dated 2 July 2019. VERIFIED AT THE IMAGE at 400 dpi, with region crops. Zero redaction bars on either sheet. The magistrate’s handwritten signature is present over a court seal; every field of the Return section is empty; the case number is a rubber stamp reading 19 CRIM 490, which the text layer renders as garbage in both copies. ⚠ The second copy’s page 7 is itself Bates-stamped EFTA01305114. ⚠ The two copies’ images are identical in the telephone field; the differing digit is an extraction error in EFTA01305108. Neither number is reproduced. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  4. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01340325 pp. 1-2, a letter of 23 November 2021 from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP to her on behalf of JPMorgan Chase, listing the subpoenas answered and describing the productions. VERIFIED AT THE IMAGE at 400 dpi. Marked FOIA CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT REQUESTED and subject to a protective order. ⚠ The sheet carries three redactions. Its text layer implies five, because two further gaps are extraction artefacts rather than bars, and the desk records the difference so that nobody counts redactions off a text layer again. The firm’s contact block and the signature are also redacted. No account number is reproduced here. ⚠ The text layer renders the firm as “Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Don LLP”; the sheet prints Dorr. The dates in the quoted subpoena list are printed with commas; the full stops in the text layer are extraction errors, and And All Affiliates is the sheet’s own capitalisation. This page reports what the letter says the productions contained and makes no claim about what the records show. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  5. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01597827 p. 1, a letter of 10 July 2020 from UBS Financial Services Inc., signed by a paralegal, answering a grand jury subpoena of 29 June 2020 captioned “Ghislaine Maxwell, et al.” VERIFIED AT THE IMAGE at 400 dpi. The account identifier is not reproduced; it is a stub UBS printed in masked form itself, not a producer redaction. ⚠ The sheet prints “et al.” with a full ascender and a period. The text layer’s “et at” is an extraction error, and this was settled at the image rather than assumed — the desk had disclosed it as a repair, and the repair turns out to be a true reading. Three bars on this sheet under-cover the contact values they hide; nothing from them is reproduced. ↩ ↩2

  6. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01654555 p. 1, an exchange of 2 and 5 December 2019 between her and an FBI special agent, copied to two other prosecutors. VERIFIED AT THE IMAGE at 600 dpi. ⚠⚠ WCTRs DOES NOT EXIST. Her request reads all the ▮/CTRs filed by JP Morgan, and the bar’s right edge touches the forward slash with no white gap; the extractor turned that bar-edge-plus-slash into a W. The same filing type is barred in all three places it appears in this exchange. The two bars in the reply were measured: interior pixel values 0-4 and 0-0 on a 0-255 grey scale, against a surrounding text band at mean 209.5, hard-edged and opaque with no glyph surviving. They are redactions, not extraction failures, and the desk does not guess at the word. The sheet prints FinCen, not FinCEN, and JP Morgan Chase in the reply against JP Morgan in the request. Epstein's SSN appears as those words only; no identity number appears anywhere on the sheet. ⚠ The reply was copied to six parties, not two — the request’s two prosecutors plus four others, so the distribution widened between the two messages. ⚠ Two redaction bars at the foot of her signature block are DELETED by the text layer, which closes the gap over them; the block does not end where the extraction suggests. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5

  7. Fourteen business-records certifications carrying the same recital, among them https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01305171, https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01659377, https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01659381, https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01659286 and https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01659385. Three were VERIFIED AT THE IMAGE at 400 dpi; the rest were read from the text layer. The bar shown in the quotation above stands for the subpoena date, which differs between documents; it is NOT a redaction. ⚠ That is stated because a bar in a quotation on this wiki otherwise means a redaction, and here it does not. Fifteen certifications sit in fourteen documents — one document carries two. ⚠ At least nine of the fifteen are blank, unexecuted template forms, and six are completed; an earlier draft of this page called all fourteen certifications by recipients, which overstated them. ⚠ SCOPE: seven of the certifications were not rendered. Their executed-or-blank status and their named recipients are UNTESTED, not zero, and the table of dates for those rests on the text layer. ⚠ Whether the 26 March 2021 subpoena belongs to the same matter is CANNOT-TELL: the sheet does not say, and the Bates prefix does not settle it because the 2019 sheets carry the same prefix. Every other date in the set falls between 2 May and 9 August 2019, and Epstein died on 10 August 2019 — that is a chronological observation and not a finding about the subpoena. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  8. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00084366 p. 73 and https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00075055 p. 121. VERIFIED AT THE IMAGE at 400 dpi. ⚠ These are not two independent reports. Both carry the same ECF header, Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1078-5 Filed 07/29/20, and one of them sits inside a Second Circuit record; they are productions of a single newspaper article filed as a single exhibit. ⚠ Both copies cited here BAR the prosecutor’s name, in each of the four places it occurs, as solid opaque bars measured at the image. The attribution to her is established from a further production in the release, which this page does not link and which is identified in the desk’s gate report. No transcript of the hearing was found in the release. ↩ ↩2

Backlinks