Epstein Data Wiki

Ghislaine Maxwell

Properties2
tagsperson, us-v-maxwell, sdny, trial, convicted, epstein-associate
aliasesGhislaine Noelle Marion Maxwell, G. Maxwell

34 min read

BornDecember 25, 1961, Maisons-Laffitte, France1
CitizenshipUnited States, France and the United Kingdom2
Criminal caseUnited States v. Maxwell, No. 20 Cr. 330 (S.D.N.Y.)3
ConvictionDecember 29, 2021, on five counts; acquitted on one4
JudgmentEntered June 29, 2022 on Counts Three, Four and Six; 240 months56
AppealAffirmed, United States v. Maxwell, 118 F.4th 256 (2d Cir. 2024); certiorari denied October 6, 202578

Ghislaine Noelle Marion Maxwell (born December 25, 1961) is a former associate of Jeffrey Epstein who was convicted by a federal jury in the Southern District of New York on December 29, 2021 of five felony offences arising from her participation in Epstein’s sexual abuse of underage girls.14 She was sentenced on June 28, 2022 to 240 months’ imprisonment.9 She pleaded not guilty and contested the charges at trial, at sentencing and on appeal; her sentencing submission argued that she was being made a scapegoat for Epstein, and the government’s submission recorded and rejected “her claim that she is being held responsible for Epstein’s crimes.”31011 The Second Circuit affirmed her conviction and sentence on September 17, 2024, the Supreme Court denied certiorari on October 6, 2025, and the district court denied her collateral challenge on August 24, 2026.7812

Background

Maxwell was born on December 25, 1961 at Maisons-Laffitte, France, the youngest child of Robert Maxwell, the publisher and Member of Parliament.1 Her sentencing memorandum records that she took A levels at Marlborough College and bachelor’s and master’s degrees at Oxford University, that she worked at a temp agency and founded a corporate gifts business that was merged into her father’s holdings, and that by 1991 she had moved to New York to launch The European, a magazine in the Maxwell publishing group.13 Her father died in November 1991; the memorandum states that the family’s assets were frozen and that she was “left to fend for herself.”1314 In 2012 she founded The TerraMar Project, an ocean-conservation non-profit that was closed after Epstein’s death in 2019.15 On 1 December 2012 Epstein instructed his accountant Richard Kahn by email to send the residue of an entity’s funds “to ghislaine charity,” and Kahn confirmed sending “32k to GM charity”; Maxwell thanked Epstein twenty-two minutes later on a message carrying TerraMar’s own signature block, writing “That will make a huge difference. I will. Start phase 3 because of your generosity.”16 At the time of her arrest she was living in New Hampshire, and Customs and Border Protection records cited by the government showed she held passports from the United States, France and the United Kingdom.172

Relationship with Epstein

The government’s sentencing memorandum, drawing on the presentence report, states that “[b]eginning in approximately 1991, the defendant had a close and intimate relationship with Epstein,” that she was Epstein’s girlfriend until about the early 2000s and that the two remained close friends afterwards; it quotes an essay in which Maxwell described the two of them as “a couple” who were “rarely apart.”18 The memorandum further states that she ran Epstein’s households, that she helped write a household manual for the Palm Beach house directing staff to “see nothing, hear nothing, say nothing,” and that Epstein transferred approximately $23 million to her and bought her a New York townhouse during the years of the charged conspiracy.19 Maxwell gave her own account of that role to the Justice Department in 2025, saying that she “ran all the properties, the staff in the properties, the management of the properties” and “oversaw the budgets,” and adding that she was “not talking about anything untoward, just the sheer size of the projects.”20 Her account and the government’s agree that she ran the households; they differ on what that involved.2019 She did dispute the government’s account of her means, and at sentencing the court rejected her contention that she was unable to pay a fine, finding that she had received a $10 million bequest from Epstein.21

Maxwell told the sentencing court in June 2022 that Epstein “was a manipulative, cunning, and controlling man who lived a profoundly compartmentalized life and fooled all of those in his orbit.”22 Her defence sentencing memorandum told the court that her relationship with Epstein “was long since over” by the time she was charged and that the government had turned to her only after Epstein’s death left it with “Epstein’s empty chair.”10

The criminal case

Investigation and charges

The United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York opened its investigation into Epstein and possible co-conspirators on or about November 29, 2018, in the week that the Miami Herald published a series of articles by Julie K. Brown “relating to Epstein, his conduct, and the circumstances of his prior conviction”; the government’s sentencing memorandum states the investigation “was prompted by investigative journalism.”2324 Epstein was indicted on July 2, 2019, arrested on July 6, 2019, and died in custody the following month.2425 Maxwell’s defence disputed the government’s account of the investigation’s origins, telling the sentencing court that the case was resurrected “[a]t the urging of civil attorneys representing Epstein’s victims.”26

A grand jury in the Southern District of New York returned a six-count indictment against Maxwell on June 29, 2020, and a superseding indictment containing the same charges with ministerial corrections followed on July 8, 2020.27 On March 29, 2021 a further superseding indictment charged her in eight counts.27 Counts One and Three charged conspiracy to entice, and conspiracy to transport, minors to engage in illegal sex acts, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371; Counts Two and Four charged the corresponding substantive enticement and transportation offences; Count Five charged sex trafficking conspiracy; Count Six charged sex trafficking of a minor, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1591; and Counts Seven and Eight charged perjury under 18 U.S.C. § 1623.2827 Maxwell pleaded not guilty to all of them.3 The perjury counts, which the government said arose from statements Maxwell made at two 2016 civil depositions, were severed on April 16, 2021 and were dismissed on the government’s motion at sentencing.293031

Arrest, plea and detention

The FBI arrested Maxwell in New Hampshire on July 2, 2020.2717 An FBI agent affidavit supporting a warrant application filed three days earlier, on June 29, 2020, stated that a target cellphone “is subscribed in the name of ‘Terramar Project, Inc.’” and that the same number was saved in Epstein’s own phone as a contact under the name “Ghislaine.”32 At her bail hearings the government argued that a telephone found wrapped in tin foil at her arrest showed an attempt to evade detection; her lawyers answered that the phone in question was “subscribed in the name of ‘Terramar Project, Inc.,’ which is easily identifiable through a simple Google search as Ms. Maxwell’s charity,” and that her primary telephone, which was not wrapped, was subscribed in the name “G Max.”33 At an arraignment and bail hearing conducted by teleconference before Judge Alison J. Nathan on July 14, 2020 she pleaded not guilty.3 The government sought detention, arguing that she posed “an extreme risk of flight” and pointing to her foreign citizenships, her wealth and what it called her lack of meaningful ties to the United States.34 Bail was denied at that hearing, and two further applications for release, in December 2020 and March 2021, were also denied; she appealed detention orders to the Second Circuit, which docketed the appeal as No. 21-770.3536 Annie Farmer, one of the four women who later testified at trial, submitted a written statement through counsel on December 15, 2020 opposing the renewed application: “I write this not only on behalf of myself, but all of the other girls and young women who were victimized by Maxwell.”37 Maxwell had pleaded not guilty and her counsel disputed the complainants’ accounts throughout the case; the renewed application was denied.33835 Maxwell was held at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn.39

Trial and verdict

Trial began on November 29, 2021 before Judge Nathan on Counts One through Six.40 Over a trial the Second Circuit described as four and a half weeks long, the government presented evidence concerning six girls.4 Four women gave evidence: three are identified in the record of the case as Jane, Kate and Carolyn, and Annie Farmer testified under her own name.41274243 In rebuttal summation the prosecutor Maurene Comey put it to the jury that Maxwell and Epstein had counted on the complainants not being believed against a couple who moved among presidents, celebrities and business leaders.43 The jury instructions identified Carolyn as the person named in Count Six and required the government to prove that Maxwell “knowingly recruited, enticed, harbored, transported, provided, or obtained” her and knew she “was under eighteen years of age.”42 The defence contested the accounts in summation, telling the jury that the searches and records the government had promised did not produce the evidence it had described and that “the evidence didn’t back up the government’s promise.”38

On December 29, 2021 the jury found Maxwell guilty on Counts One, Three, Four, Five and Six, and acquitted her on Count Two.4 It made no finding on the severed perjury counts, which were never tried.28

NPR reported in February 2026 that two women say Epstein and Maxwell approached them as teenagers at Interlochen Center for the Arts, a Michigan arts school Epstein had supported as a donor, and that one of the two testified at this trial. That is the publication’s account and not a finding of fact, and the fuller account is set out on the school’s own page rather than here. Neither NPR’s report nor the documents cited on this page record any response from Maxwell to either account.44

Post-trial motions

After the verdict a juror, referred to in the case by the pseudonym Juror 50 under a juror anonymity order entered for the trial, gave interviews to the press.4546 Maxwell moved for a new trial under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33 on the ground that the juror had not disclosed during jury selection that he had experienced sexual abuse.45 The district court held an evidentiary hearing on March 8, 2022, at which the juror testified under a grant of immunity.45 Judge Nathan found that testimony credible, concluded that his failure to disclose “was highly unfortunate, but not deliberate” and that he “harbored no bias toward the Defendant,” and denied the motion on April 1, 2022.47

By an opinion and order of April 29, 2022 the court denied Maxwell’s motions for a judgment of acquittal under Rule 29, for relief on the ground of constructive amendment or variance, and for dismissal for pre-indictment delay, but granted her motion on multiplicity: the government conceded that Count One was multiplicitous with Count Three, the court concluded that Count Five was as well, and it directed that judgment of conviction be entered on Counts Three, Four and Six only.6

Sentencing

Maxwell was sentenced on June 28, 2022 by Judge Nathan, by then a judge of the Second Circuit sitting by designation.95 The Guidelines calculation was contested: the Probation Office calculated an advisory range of 292 to 365 months and recommended 240 months, while the government argued for a range of 360 to 660 months.48 The court held that the government had not shown by a preponderance that the offence conduct continued after November 1, 2004, applied the 2003 Guidelines manual on that basis, and calculated a range of 188 to 235 months, which both parties accepted as the arithmetic result.4950 It applied a four-level leadership enhancement, finding that Maxwell had supervised Sarah Kellen on the strength of testimony from two of Epstein’s pilots that Kellen was Maxwell’s assistant, corroborated by other testimony that Maxwell was Epstein’s “number two and the lady of the house” in Palm Beach; the defence argued that Maxwell and Kellen “did not overlap.”5152

Addressing the offence, the court said that “Ms. Maxwell worked with Epstein to select young victims who were vulnerable,” and that “[o]nce selected, Ms. Maxwell played a pivotal role in facilitating the abuse of the underaged girls through a series of deceptive tactics.”53 It found that “a very serious, a very significant sentence is necessary to achieve the purposes of punishment.”54 It largely rejected Maxwell’s account of her treatment at the Metropolitan Detention Center as “unfounded and exaggerated” and noted “a lack of full candor” that it considered consistent with her conduct at the civil depositions underlying the perjury counts.39 The court said it was appropriate to take into account “a lack of acceptance of responsibility, a lack of expression of remorse as to her own conduct,” while stating expressly that Maxwell “was fully entitled and is fully entitled to exercise her constitutional right to go to trial” and had “every right to appeal that verdict.”55

Given the opportunity to address the court, Maxwell said she empathised “deeply with all of the victims in this case,” acknowledged that she had “been convicted of helping Jeffrey Epstein commit these crimes,” called it “the greatest regret of my life that I ever met Jeffrey Epstein,” and told the complainants she was “sorry for the pain that you experienced.”56 The sentencing court found that what her submission and her statement had not expressed was acceptance of responsibility.39

The court imposed 60 months on Count Three, 120 months on Count Four and 240 months on Count Six, all concurrent, for a total of 240 months; three years’ supervised release on Counts Three and Four and five years on Count Six, concurrent; a fine of $250,000 on each count, $750,000 in total; and a mandatory special assessment of $100 per count.92157 The government sought neither restitution nor forfeiture.21 The court recommended that the Bureau of Prisons consider placement at Danbury.31 Judgment was entered on June 29, 2022, recording that Maxwell had been found guilty on Counts One, Three, Four, Five and Six with “judgment not entered on 1 & 5 as multiplicitous,” and that Counts Seven and Eight were dismissed on the motion of the United States.5

Appeal

Maxwell raised five claims in the Second Circuit: that Epstein’s 2007 non-prosecution agreement with the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida barred her prosecution in New York; that the indictment was untimely; that the denial of her Rule 33 motion was an abuse of discretion; that the court’s response to a jury note about Count Four constructively amended the indictment or produced a prejudicial variance; and that her sentence was procedurally unreasonable.58

Her argument on the first point rested on the clause of Epstein’s September 2007 agreement by which the United States agreed not to institute criminal charges against “any potential co-conspirators of Epstein.”59 The clause went on to name four other people; it did not name Maxwell, and her sentencing memorandum made the same point.59

The Second Circuit rejected each claim.7 On the agreement, it applied United States v. Annabi, 771 F.2d 670 (2d Cir. 1985), for the rule that “[a] plea agreement binds only the office of the United States Attorney for the district in which the plea is entered unless it affirmatively appears that the agreement contemplates a broader restriction,” and held that “[t]here is nothing in the NPA that affirmatively shows that the NPA was intended to bind multiple districts.”60 On limitations, it held that 18 U.S.C. § 3283 as amended by the PROTECT Act of 2003 extended the time to bring charges for pre-enactment conduct.61 On the jury note, which asked whether Maxwell could be found guilty under Count Four if she aided in the transportation of a return flight rather than the flight to New Mexico, it held that the instructions, the evidence and the summation “captured the core of criminality” charged.62 On sentencing, it upheld the leadership enhancement and held that the district court “did not err by failing to adequately explain its sentence”; its holding was that the sentence was procedurally reasonable, the only sentencing ground Maxwell had raised.517 The judgment was affirmed on September 17, 2024, and a petition for panel rehearing or rehearing en banc was denied on November 25, 2024.763

Maxwell filed a petition for certiorari on April 10, 2025, presenting the question whether “a promise on behalf of the ‘United States’ or the ‘Government’ that is made by a United States Attorney in one district bind[s] federal prosecutors in other districts.”64 The Solicitor General filed a brief in opposition in July 2025 arguing that the petition should be denied, and noting that Maxwell “was not a party to the relevant agreement.”65 The Supreme Court denied certiorari on October 6, 2025.841

Collateral challenge

On December 17, 2025 Maxwell, acting for herself, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate her conviction and sentence, docketed as 25 Civ. 10468 and assigned, with the criminal case, to Judge Paul A. Engelmayer.6612 She argued that her constitutional rights had been violated at trial and sentencing and that documents released in 2026 under the Epstein Files Transparency Act supported her claims.12 By opinion and order dated August 24, 2026 the court denied the petition, holding that the ten principal claims were “all meritless and all or almost all are frivolous,” that most were procedurally barred, and that the released material was “largely irrelevant to the charges against Maxwell.”12 It declined to issue a certificate of appealability and certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.67

The Giuffre defamation action

Virginia Roberts Giuffre sued Maxwell for defamation in the Southern District of New York in 2015, in Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 15-cv-07433.68 Judge Robert W. Sweet entered a protective order governing discovery on March 18, 2016, and Maxwell was deposed on April 22 and July 22, 2016.6968 The parties settled and voluntarily dismissed the action on or about May 24, 2017.23 Litigation over the unsealing of the record continued after the settlement and reached the Second Circuit twice.23

The perjury counts in the criminal case were founded on Maxwell’s answers at the 2016 depositions.30 Maxwell’s motion to sever those counts described Giuffre’s allegations as false and said that Maxwell had denied them, and her defence maintained that position; the counts were never tried and were dismissed at sentencing.3031 The women who gave evidence at the criminal trial were Jane, Kate, Carolyn and Annie Farmer.4143 The government’s sentencing memorandum identified Giuffre, together with a further complainant, as victims whose abuse it said had been proven at trial although they were not named in the indictment; the defence objected to their being treated as separate offence groups for Guidelines purposes and preserved that objection.4850

Statements at Epstein’s 2019 hearing

At the hearing on August 27, 2019 at which Judge Richard M. Berman considered the government’s motion to dismiss the indictment against Epstein after his death, Annie Farmer spoke on behalf of her sister, whose name is redacted in the transcript as released and who is identified as Maria Farmer in Maxwell’s own later filing.70 She told the court that Maxwell as well as Epstein had assaulted her sister, that her sister had reported them in 1996 “to no avail,” and that it was important that the other people who took part in what Epstein did be held accountable.71 Maxwell was not charged at that time; she was arrested in July 2020 and pleaded not guilty, and her counsel disputed Annie Farmer’s account in summation at trial.27338

The 2025 Justice Department interview

On July 24 and 25, 2025 Maxwell was interviewed at length by the Deputy Attorney General, Todd Blanche, accompanied by an FBI special agent and by her own counsel.7273 The interview proceeded under a proffer agreement which, as Blanche put it on the record, “isn’t a cooperation agreement,” and Maxwell acknowledged she could be prosecuted for false statements made during it.7274 Asked whether she had ever known Epstein to encourage other men to have inappropriate sexual contact with masseuses, she answered “No,” said she had never heard him ask anyone, and said that in the whole time she knew him nobody had ever reported anything inappropriate to her.75 That question was not among the charges tried in her own case, and none of the proceedings described on this page records a finding on it.28 Her convictions concern her own participation with Epstein, on which the jury’s verdict and the sentencing court’s findings are set out above.453 In 2026 the district court cited passages of the same transcript as undercutting one of the claims in her § 2255 petition, her assertion that she had largely left Epstein’s household by 2002.52

An FBI New York field office daily news summary for August 6, 2025 recorded that The Washington Post had reported the previous day that Maxwell had been transferred to the Bryan Federal Prison Camp in Texas, a minimum-security facility.76 The docket in her criminal case records her as confined at that facility in August 2026.77

The case record and the Epstein Files Transparency Act

On July 18, 2025 the Department of Justice moved to unseal the grand jury transcripts and exhibits in Maxwell’s case; Maxwell opposed.78 The motion states it was filed “[a]t the direction of the Attorney General,” and is signed by Attorney General Pamela J. Bondi and, by electronic signature, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche; it asks the court to release the grand jury transcripts “subject to appropriate redactions of victim-related and other personal identifying information,” to be worked out with the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, and states that the Department was filing “similar motions” in the dismissed indictment United States v. Epstein, No. 1:19-cr-490 (S.D.N.Y.), and in the Southern District of Florida.79 Its legal argument was that grand jury secrecy under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e) is not absolute, that the Second Circuit has recognized “special circumstances” for disclosure outside the rule’s listed exceptions, and that historical or public interest can itself be such a circumstance; it acknowledged that Maxwell’s case was “currently pending before the Supreme Court on a petition for a writ of certiorari” and moved for release regardless, citing “the intense public scrutiny into this matter.”79 On August 11, 2025 Judge Engelmayer denied the motion, holding that no exception to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e) applied and that the premise that the materials would reveal significant new information was “demonstrably false.”78 After Congress passed the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which was signed into law on November 19, 2025 and which requires the Attorney General to publish Department of Justice records relating to Epstein and to Maxwell by name, the department returned to the court; on December 9, 2025 the court held that the Act covered the grand jury materials and overrode Rule 6(e) as to them, and modified Judge Nathan’s protective order so that the trial discovery could be released, subject to a mechanism to protect complainants’ identities.4180

On January 21, 2026 the court denied a motion by Representatives Thomas Massie and Ro Khanna, co-sponsors of the Act, to participate in the criminal case as amici curiae and to have a special master appointed to supervise the department’s compliance, holding that a closed criminal prosecution gave the court no jurisdiction over a civil records-disclosure statute and that the proposed intervention exceeded the bounds of amicus participation.81

Proceedings

ProceedingCourtNumberOutcome
Giuffre v. Maxwell (defamation)S.D.N.Y.15-cv-07433Settled and dismissed on or about May 24, 201723
Criminal prosecutionS.D.N.Y.20 Cr. 330Guilty on five counts, December 29, 2021; acquitted on Count Two4
Rule 33 motion (Juror 50)S.D.N.Y.20 Cr. 330, Dkt. 653Denied April 1, 202247
Rule 29 and multiplicity motionsS.D.N.Y.20 Cr. 330, Dkt. 657Rule 29 denied; multiplicity granted, April 29, 20226
Sentencing and judgmentS.D.N.Y.20 Cr. 330240 months imposed June 28, 2022; judgment entered June 29, 202295
Direct appeal2d Cir.22-1426Affirmed September 17, 20247
Rehearing / rehearing en banc2d Cir.22-1426Denied November 25, 202463
CertiorariU.S. Supreme Court24-1073Denied October 6, 20258
§ 2255 petitionS.D.N.Y.25 Civ. 10468Denied August 24, 202612

Coverage

  • Reuters, January 5, 2022 (Juror 50’s post-verdict interviews).46
  • The Washington Post, August 5, 2025 (transfer to Bryan), as summarised in an FBI New York daily news digest.76

Footnotes

  1. Ms. Maxwell’s Sentencing Memorandum, Document 663, United States v. Maxwell, No. 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (S.D.N.Y.), filed June 15, 2022, p. 10 of 77. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00010447 ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  2. The Government’s Memorandum in Support of Detention, Document 4, United States v. Maxwell, No. 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (S.D.N.Y.), filed July 2, 2020, p. 7 of 10 (“CBP records reflect that, consistent with her citizenship status, the defendant appears to possess passports from the United States, France, and the United Kingdom”). https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00018505 ↩ ↩2

  3. Transcript of arraignment and bail hearing (teleconference), July 14, 2020, Document 93, United States v. Maxwell, No. 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed December 10, 2020, pp. 1 and 11 of 91 (“THE DEFENDANT: Not guilty, your Honor.”). https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00001878 ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6

  4. United States v. Maxwell, No. 22-1426-cr (2d Cir.), opinion of Cabranes, J., decided September 17, 2024, p. 7 of 26 and n.6 (“During the four-and-a-half-week jury trial, the Government presented evidence of the repeated sexual abuse of six girls. At the conclusion of trial, on December 29, 2021, the jury found Maxwell guilty on all but one count”; “The jury found Maxwell guilty on Counts One, Three, Four, Five, and Six. Maxwell was acquitted on Count Two.”). https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00000002 ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6

  5. Judgment in a Criminal Case, United States v. Maxwell, No. S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN), dated June 29, 2022, reproduced as Appendix C to the petition for certiorari at pp. 69–70 of 159 (“found guilty on count(s) … 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 (judgment not entered on 1 & 5 as multiplicitous, Dkt. No. 657)”; “Count(s) 7, 8 and underlying indictments … are dismissed on the motion of the United States”). https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00000034 ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  6. Docket entry for Document 657, Opinion & Order of April 29, 2022, same docket sheet, p. 88 of 1523 (“the Court grants the Defendant’s motion as to multiplicity. The Government concedes that Count One is multiplicitous with Count Three, and the Court further concludes that Count Five is multiplicitous with Count Three… Accordingly, the Court will enter judgment of conviction on Counts Three, Four, and Six.”). https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00020385 ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  7. Second Circuit opinion, pp. 25–26 of 26 (“we AFFIRM the District Court’s June 29, 2022, judgment of conviction”; the fifth holding is that “[t]he District Court’s sentence was procedurally reasonable”). https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00000002 ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6

  8. Supreme Court of the United States, docket for Maxwell v. United States, No. 24-1073: petition filed April 10, 2025; brief in opposition filed July 14, 2025; distributed for the conference of September 29, 2025; “Petition DENIED” October 6, 2025. https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-1073.html ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  9. Sentencing transcript, p. 96 of 101 (“Ms. Maxwell, it is the judgment of this Court that you be sentenced to a period of 240 months, 20 years, to be followed by a period of five years’ supervised release”). https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00011520 ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  10. Sentencing Memorandum (defence), pp. 4–5 of 77. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00010447 ↩ ↩2

  11. Government’s Sentencing Memorandum, p. 4 of 55, addressing “her claim that she is being held responsible for Epstein’s crimes.” ↩

  12. Opinion & Order, Document 869, Maxwell v. United States, Nos. 20 Cr. 330 (PAE) and 25 Civ. 10468 (PAE) (S.D.N.Y.), filed August 24, 2026, pp. 1–2 of 67. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.539612/gov.uscourts.nysd.539612.869.0.pdf ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5

  13. Sentencing Memorandum (defence), p. 12 of 77. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00010447 ↩ ↩2

  14. Sentencing Memorandum (defence), pp. 12–13 of 77. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00010447 ↩

  15. Sentencing Memorandum (defence), p. 14 of 77. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00010447 ↩

  16. Email chain of 1 December 2012 carrying Epstein’s question to Richard Kahn timed 19:07:36 +0100, Kahn’s answer, Epstein’s instruction “ok,, send to ghislaine charity,” and Maxwell’s reply timed 19:01:37 +0000 under TerraMar’s full signature block. Every correspondent’s address is blacked out. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00671630 p.1. Kahn’s confirmation, “Confirming sending 32k to GM charity,” is in a separate message of the same day. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01765042 p.1. ↩

  17. Sentencing Memorandum (defence), p. 5 of 77. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00010447 ↩ ↩2

  18. Government’s Sentencing Memorandum, p. 7 of 55. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00010536 ↩

  19. Government’s Sentencing Memorandum, p. 8 of 55. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00010536 ↩ ↩2

  20. Interview transcript, July 24, 2025, printed pages 35–36 of 262. The same passage is quoted by the district court in its opinion of August 24, 2026 at p. 52 of 67. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00022393 ↩ ↩2

  21. Sentencing transcript, p. 97 of 101 (“Ms. Maxwell has received a $10 million bequest from Epstein”; “The government has indicated that it is not seeking restitution nor forfeiture”; special assessment of $100 per count). https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00011520 ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  22. Sentencing transcript, p. 85 of 101; quotation read from the page image. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00011520 ↩

  23. Omnibus Memorandum in Opposition, p. 91 of 237 (“On or about May 24, 2017, the parties entered into a settlement agreement and voluntarily dismissed the civil action”; investigation opened on or about November 29–30, 2018, “prompted by a series of articles published by the Miami Herald earlier that same week”). https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00095067 ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  24. Government’s Sentencing Memorandum, p. 5 of 55. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00010536 ↩ ↩2

  25. Opinion & Order of August 24, 2026, p. 2 of 67 (Epstein indicted July 2, 2019, arrested July 6, 2019, died August 10, 2019). https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.539612/gov.uscourts.nysd.539612.869.0.pdf ↩

  26. Sentencing Memorandum (defence), p. 4 of 77. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00010447 ↩

  27. Government’s Sentencing Memorandum, p. 6 of 55. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00010536 ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6

  28. Second Circuit opinion, p. 6 of 26 and n.5 (count-by-count description; “The perjury charges were severed from the remaining charges and ultimately dismissed at sentencing”). https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00000002 ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  29. Government’s Sentencing Memorandum, p. 7 of 55, n.1 (“On April 16, 2021, the Court granted the defendant’s motion to sever the perjury charges for a separate trial”). https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00010536 ↩

  30. Memorandum of Ghislaine Maxwell in Support of Her Motion for a Severance of and Separate Trial on Counts Five and Six of the Superseding Indictment, Document 120, United States v. Maxwell, No. 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed January 25, 2021, pp. 5–6 of 19. In the first superseding indictment the perjury charges were Counts Five and Six; they were renumbered Seven and Eight in the second superseding indictment. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00002279 ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  31. Sentencing transcript, p. 99 of 101 (Danbury recommendation; “The government moves to dismiss Counts Seven and Eight and any underlying indictments. THE COURT: The motion is granted.”). https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00011520 ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  32. Agent affidavit in support of In re: Warrants and Orders For Prospective and Historical Location Information and Pen Register Information for the Cellphones Assigned Call Numbers, S.D.N.Y. 20 Mag. 6770, application dated June 29, 2020, paragraphs 10 and 11. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00026494 p.11. ↩

  33. Defence filing in support of Ghislaine Maxwell’s renewed bail application, United States v. Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00065716 p.30. ↩

  34. Memorandum in Support of Detention, p. 2 of 10. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00018505 ↩

  35. District court docket sheet as of March 2021, reproduced at pp. 4–27 of 304 in the Second Circuit record for appeal No. 21-770, showing bail denied at the July 14, 2020 hearing, the renewed motion of December 8, 2020 (Dkt. 97) denied, and a third motion for release (Dkt. 160) denied. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00000838 ↩ ↩2

  36. Second Circuit docketing notice, United States v. Maxwell, No. 21-770, March 24, 2021, at p. 1 of 304 of the same production. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00000838 ↩

  37. Statement of Annie Farmer, December 15, 2020, submitted by Sigrid S. McCawley of Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, reproduced at pp. 38–39 of 176 of the government’s bail-opposition compilation. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00001142 ↩

  38. Trial transcript, December 20, 2021, Document 767, defence summation of Laura A. Menninger at pp. 92–93 of 257. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00014401 ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  39. Sentencing transcript, p. 95 of 101; quotations read from the page image. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00011520 ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  40. Government’s Sentencing Memorandum, p. 7 of 55 (“On November 29, 2021, the defendant proceeded to trial on Counts One though Six.”). https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00010536 ↩

  41. Opinion & Order, Document 820, United States v. Maxwell, No. 20 Cr. 330 (PAE) (S.D.N.Y.), filed December 9, 2025, pp. 1–3 of 24. https://nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/2025-12/PAE%20Maxwell%20Opinion%202025.12.09%20(As%20Docketed).pdf ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  42. Jury instructions, Document 562, United States v. Maxwell, No. 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed December 17, 2021, pp. 17 and 33–35 of 82 (Count Six identified as relating to Carolyn; elements of Count Six). https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00008457 ↩ ↩2

  43. Trial transcript, December 20, 2021, Document 767, United States v. Maxwell, No. 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed August 10, 2022, rebuttal summation of AUSA Maurene Comey at p. 183 of 257. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00014401 ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  44. Ava Berger and Scott Neuman, “How Epstein and Maxwell used an elite Midwest arts school to prey on girls,” NPR, February 19, 2026. Read in full through the publisher’s own page. https://www.npr.org/2026/02/19/nx-s1-5707290/epstein-files-victims-interlochen-ghislaine-maxwell ↩

  45. Second Circuit opinion, pp. 7–8 and 17–19 of 26. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00000002 ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  46. Luc Cohen, “Some Ghislaine Maxwell jurors initially doubted accusers, juror says,” Reuters, January 5, 2022, as filed in the district court record. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00009187 ↩ ↩2

  47. Docket entry for Document 653, Opinion & Order of April 1, 2022, in the district court docket sheet reproduced in the Second Circuit record, p. 88 of 1523 (“The Court concludes that Juror 50 testified credibly and truthfully at the post-trial hearing. His failure to disclose his prior sexual abuse during the jury selection process was highly unfortunate, but not deliberate… The Defendant’s motion for a new trial pursuant to Rule 33 is therefore DENIED.”). https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00020385 ↩ ↩2

  48. The Government’s Sentencing Memorandum, Document 670, United States v. Maxwell, No. 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed June 22, 2022, pp. 3–4 of 55 (the range the government sought), p. 16 of 55 (the Probation Office’s recommendation of twenty years) and p. 17 of 55 (the Probation Office’s range of 292 to 365 months, and the two further victims the government asked to be counted as separate groups). https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00010536 ↩ ↩2

  49. Transcript of sentencing, June 28, 2022, Document 737, United States v. Maxwell, No. 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed July 22, 2022, pp. 37 and 39 of 101 (“Because I cannot on this record find by a preponderance of the evidence that the offense continued during that two-month window after November 1, 2004… I must apply the 2003 guidelines.”). https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00011520 ↩

  50. Sentencing transcript, p. 50 of 101 (“that produces a guideline range 188 to 235”; defence objection preserved as to two further victims being treated as separate offence groups). https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00011520 ↩ ↩2

  51. Second Circuit opinion, pp. 23–25 of 26, including n.51 (“the District Court calculated a Guidelines range of 188 to 235 months’ imprisonment and sentenced Maxwell to a slightly above-Guidelines term of 240 months’ imprisonment”). https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00000002 ↩ ↩2

  52. Opinion & Order of August 24, 2026, pp. 51–52 of 67 (leadership enhancement; defence position that Kellen and Maxwell “did not overlap”; passages of the July 24, 2025 interview transcript). https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.539612/gov.uscourts.nysd.539612.869.0.pdf ↩ ↩2

  53. Sentencing transcript, p. 90 of 101; quotation read from the page image, which prints “venire” where “veneer” would be expected. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00011520 ↩ ↩2

  54. Sentencing transcript, p. 92 of 101. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00011520 ↩

  55. Sentencing transcript, pp. 95–96 of 101; quotations read from the page images. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00011520 ↩

  56. Sentencing transcript, pp. 85–86 of 101; quotations read from the page images. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00011520 ↩

  57. Second Circuit opinion, p. 3 of 26 (“concurrent terms of imprisonment of 60 months, 120 months, and 240 months, respectively, to be followed by concurrent terms of supervised release of three years, three years, and five years, respectively. The District Court also imposed a fine of $250,000 on each count for a total of $750,000.”). https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00000002 ↩

  58. Second Circuit opinion, p. 4 of 26 (the five questions presented). https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00000002 ↩

  59. Second Circuit opinion, p. 5 of 26, quoting the non-prosecution agreement at A-178; the defence sentencing memorandum makes the same point, that Maxwell “was not named in the Florida ‘sweetheart’ deal.” https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00000002 and https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00010447 (p. 5 of 77) ↩ ↩2

  60. Second Circuit opinion, pp. 9–10 of 26. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00000002 ↩

  61. Second Circuit opinion, pp. 15–16 of 26. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00000002 ↩

  62. Second Circuit opinion, pp. 19–21 of 26 (jury note quoted at p. 19; “core of criminality” at p. 21). https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00000002 ↩

  63. Order, United States v. Maxwell, No. 22-1426 (2d Cir. Nov. 25, 2024), Document 120, denying the petition for panel rehearing or, in the alternative, for rehearing en banc; it is the final page of the same corpus production, which runs to 27 pages. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00000002 ↩ ↩2

  64. Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, Maxwell v. United States, filed April 10, 2025, pp. 1–2 of 159 (cover and question presented). https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00000034 ↩

  65. Brief for the United States in Opposition, Maxwell v. United States, No. 24-1073, July 2025, cover page and pp. 20–21 of 21 (“petitioner was not a party to the relevant agreement”; “The petition for a writ of certiorari should be denied”). The cover page prints “No. 24-1073”; the corpus text layer renders it “24-1075”, and the Supreme Court’s docket confirms 24-1073. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00000219 ↩

  66. Opinion & Order of January 21, 2026, p. 4 of 7 (recording Maxwell’s pro se § 2255 petition, Dkt. 830, filed December 17, 2025). https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/2026-01/Maxwell%2020cr330%20-%20Opinion%20&%20Order%201.21.26.pdf ↩

  67. Opinion & Order of August 24, 2026, p. 67 of 67. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.539612/gov.uscourts.nysd.539612.869.0.pdf ↩

  68. Protective Order, Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 15-cv-07433-RWS (S.D.N.Y.). https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00002371 ↩ ↩2

  69. The Government’s Omnibus Memorandum in Opposition to the Defendant’s Pre-Trial Motions, United States v. Maxwell, No. S1 20 Cr. 330 (AJN), dated February 26, 2021, p. 90 of 237 (protective order entered March 18, 2016; depositions of April 22 and July 22, 2016). https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00095067 ↩

  70. Second Rule 17(c) motion, United States v. Maxwell, p. 4 of 10: “Maria Farmer is the individual who purportedly introduced her younger sister to Jeffrey Epstein.” https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00005043 ↩

  71. Transcript of proceeding, August 27, 2019, Document 53, United States v. Epstein, No. 1:19-cr-00490-RMB (S.D.N.Y.), filed September 3, 2019, p. 58 of 86; the hearing considered the government’s motion to dismiss the indictment after Epstein’s death and gave victims an opportunity to be heard (p. 3 of 86). https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00019994 ↩

  72. Transcript of the interview of Ghislaine Maxwell by the Department of Justice, July 24, 2025, printed pages 1–6 of 262 (appearances; proffer agreement), the printed numbers running one to a sheet from the first sheet of the file. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00022393 ↩ ↩2

  73. Transcript of the interview of Ghislaine Maxwell by the Department of Justice, July 25, 2025, printed page 216 (appearances), which is the first sheet of the file. This volume’s printed pagination continues from the July 24 volume and begins at 216, so the printed page number and the sheet position differ throughout; the file served here is 154 sheets and its printed numbers skip 227, 231 and 235, so the two numbers diverge further after that point. Cited by printed page for that reason. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00022759 ↩

  74. Opinion & Order of August 24, 2026, p. 52 of 67, n.21. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.539612/gov.uscourts.nysd.539612.869.0.pdf ↩

  75. Interview transcript, July 24, 2025, printed page 89 of 262; quotation read from the page image. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00022393 ↩

  76. FBI New York field office daily news summary, “SITREP and Yellow is the Color of the Day for Wednesday, August 6, 2025,” p. 1 of 3, summarising a report of August 5, 2025 by The Washington Post. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01656912 ↩ ↩2

  77. Docket entry for Document 869, United States v. Maxwell, No. 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (S.D.N.Y.), entered August 25, 2026, recording service of the opinion on Maxwell at the Federal Prison Camp, Bryan, Texas. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17318376/united-states-v-maxwell/ ↩

  78. Opinion & Order of December 9, 2025, pp. 3–5 of 24, describing the motion of July 18, 2025 and the decision of August 11, 2025, United States v. Maxwell, 794 F. Supp. 3d 215 (S.D.N.Y. 2025). https://nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/2025-12/PAE%20Maxwell%20Opinion%202025.12.09%20(As%20Docketed).pdf ↩ ↩2

  79. United States’ Motion to Unseal Grand Jury Transcripts, Document 785, United States v. Maxwell, No. 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (S.D.N.Y.), filed July 18, 2025, p. 1 of 4 (“At the direction of the Attorney General, the Department of Justice hereby moves the Court to release grand jury transcripts associated with the above-referenced indictment.”); p. 2 of 4 (“subject to appropriate redactions of victim-related and other personal identifying information”; “The Department of Justice is filing similar motions in United States v. Epstein, 1:19-cr-490 (S.D.N.Y.), and in the Southern District of Florida.”); pp. 3–4 of 4 (citing In re Craig, 131 F.3d 99 (2d Cir. 1997), for “special circumstances” permitting disclosure outside Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e); “While the Government recognizes that Maxwell’s case is currently pending before the Supreme Court on a petition for a writ of certiorari, it nonetheless moves this Court for relief”); p. 4 of 4 (signature block: Pamela J. Bondi, U.S. Attorney General; /s/ Todd Blanche, Deputy Attorney General). Image-checked against the page renderings; the text layer misreads the docket number in the caption box as “1:20-cr-330 (MN)” where the image reads “1:20-cr-330 (AJN)”. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02842875 ↩ ↩2

  80. Opinion & Order of December 9, 2025, pp. 5–6 of 24, setting out § 2 of the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which names Maxwell as the second category of records required to be released. https://nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/2025-12/PAE%20Maxwell%20Opinion%202025.12.09%20(As%20Docketed).pdf ↩

  81. Opinion & Order, Document 844, United States v. Maxwell, No. 20 Cr. 330 (PAE) (S.D.N.Y.), filed January 21, 2026, pp. 1–7 of 7. https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/2026-01/Maxwell%2020cr330%20-%20Opinion%20&%20Order%201.21.26.pdf ↩

Backlinks