Epstein Data Wiki

Nadia Marcinkova

Properties2
tagsperson, epstein-assistant, non-prosecution-agreement, operation-leap-year
aliasesNadia Marcinko, Nada Marcinkova, Naďa Marcinkova

15 min read

Also recorded asNadia Marcinko; Nada Marcinkova; Naďa Marcinkova1234
RoleNamed in the proposed federal indictment among those Epstein employed to perform “services as personal assistants”5
Federal investigationOperation Leap Year, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Florida67
Named as a defendantIn the proposed federal indictment prepared by that office, and in the March 18, 2008 federal grand jury caption56
2007 Non-Prosecution AgreementNamed in the co-conspirators clause8
DeposedApril 13, 2010, in Florida civil litigation; invoked the Fifth Amendment910
Butterfly TrustNamed in the beneficiary class of the trust Epstein created in December 20063

Nadia Marcinkova, who later used the name Nadia Marcinko, is one of four women named in the co-conspirators clause of the non-prosecution agreement that resolved the federal investigation of Jeffrey Epstein in the Southern District of Florida, executed in September 2007.8 The U.S. Attorney’s Office for that district had prepared a proposed indictment naming her as a defendant alongside Epstein, Sarah Kellen and Adriana Ross, and the transcript of a West Palm Beach grand jury session of March 18, 2008 is captioned as a criminal case naming the same four.56 The investigation was resolved by that agreement rather than by indictment, and no criminal charge against her appears in the documents cited on this page.811 She was deposed in Florida civil litigation on April 13, 2010 and invoked the Fifth Amendment.910 The Daily Beast reported in March 2020 that she “is a licensed pilot and flight instructor” and “runs an aviation consulting business called Aviloop”, and carried a statement from her attorney Erica T. Dubno that “Nadia is eager to join the other victims in speaking out about what she has endured” but was “not yet able to comment publicly”; that statement addresses no particular allegation, and no other statement from her is recorded on this page.12

Names in the record

Court and government papers use several forms of her name.51234 The non-prosecution agreement, the proposed federal indictment and the March 2008 grand jury caption use “Nadia Marcinkova”.856 Epstein’s Butterfly Trust agreement of December 2006 names her, on the page image, as “NAĎA MARCINKOVA”.3 A Rule 45 subpoena issued in Giuffre v. Maxwell in 2016 is addressed to “NADIA MARCINKOVA (A/K/A NADIA MARCINKO)”.2 An FBI link-analysis chart in the bureau’s Epstein file labels her node “Nadia Marcinko”.1 A 2009 document request in Florida civil litigation, and Epstein’s response to it, use “Nada Marcinkova”.4 “Nadia Marcinkova” appears as item 39 on the “Names for Voir Dire” list read to prospective jurors at the Maxwell trial.13

Role in Epstein’s household

The proposed federal indictment prepared by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida opens with the allegation that Epstein “employed defendants SARAH KELLEN, ADRIANA ROSS, a/k/a ‘Adriana Mucinska,’ and NADIA MARCINKOVA to perform, among other things, services as personal assistants”.5

An FBI link-analysis chart in the bureau’s Epstein file, case number 31E-NY-3027571, sets out the roles the bureau attributed to people around Epstein.1 The line joining her node to Epstein’s is labelled “Girlfriend”.1 The entry for her opens, “Unknown if she actually recruited or abused any of the victims”; it then records a rumour about her position in Epstein’s household, states that victims often described someone fitting her description as being involved in the sexual abuse during the massages, and says she travelled with Epstein.1 Those are the bureau’s summaries of what witnesses told it, not findings of a court.1 The general statement her attorney gave The Daily Beast in March 2020 does not address the chart, and no response from her to it is recorded on this page.121

The Florida federal investigation, 2006–2008

The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida investigated Epstein from 2006 under the name Operation Leap Year.67 Its file contains a proposed indictment, carried in the office’s grand jury presentation materials, captioned United States of America v. Jeffrey Epstein, Sarah Kellen, Adriana Ross, a/k/a “Adriana Mucinska,” and Nadia Marcinkova.5 It would have charged her in a conspiracy count under 18 U.S.C. § 371, in sex-trafficking counts under 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a)(1) and § 1591(a)(2), in one count of enticement of a minor under 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b), in a travel-conspiracy count under 18 U.S.C. § 2423(e), and in two counts of travel to engage in illicit sexual conduct under 18 U.S.C. § 2423(b); she was also named in the indictment’s forfeiture allegation.14 The federal investigation was resolved by the non-prosecution agreement rather than by indictment; the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility later recorded that there were “no federal charges filed against Epstein as a result of the government’s agreement in mid-2007 to defer prosecution to the state.”811 The statement her attorney gave The Daily Beast in March 2020 addresses no part of the proposed charges, and no response from her to them is recorded on this page.12

The transcript of testimony before Federal Grand Jury 07-103 in West Palm Beach on March 18, 2008, later filed as an exhibit in the Maxwell prosecution, carries the same four-defendant caption; the witness was an FBI special agent and the government was represented by Assistant U.S. Attorney A. Marie Villafaña.6

The investigation timeline exhibit records two entries about her representation.7 On August 28, 2007 the attorney Nathan Z. Dershowitz wrote to Villafaña that he had left messages with Sarah Kellen and Nadia Marcinkova to ask whether he could accept service on their behalf; on September 6, 2007 Villafaña wrote to Dershowitz questioning the representation of the two women.7

A statement of undisputed facts filed in Florida state court by Bradley J. Edwards reproduces a plea proffer that Villafaña sent to Epstein’s counsel on September 18, 2007, setting out a factual basis for a witness-tampering charge.15 The proffer states that after FBI agents came to the home of another of Epstein’s assistants, Lesley Groff, to serve a federal grand jury subpoena in August 2007, Epstein became concerned that the agents would try to serve Marcinkova; that they were preparing to serve her with a target letter when his aircraft landed at Teterboro; and that that Epstein redirected his aircraft so that agents could not serve her with a target letter15 It adds that during the flight he pressured her not to cooperate with the grand jury’s investigation.15 The conduct the proffer describes is Epstein’s; the agreement he signed later that month required guilty pleas to two Florida state charges and no federal plea.1516

The 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement

The agreement’s signature block is headed by U.S. Attorney R. Alexander Acosta over the line for Assistant U.S. Attorney A. Marie Villafaña; the copy filed in Epstein’s 2019 bail proceedings carries three versions of the final page, signed respectively by Epstein, by his counsel Gerald Lefcourt and by Lilly Ann Sanchez, each dated 9/24/07, and the government’s signature line is blank on all three.16 The clause naming her reads:8

the United States also agrees that it will not institute any criminal charges against any potential co-conspirators of Epstein, including but not limited to Sarah Kellen, Adriana Ross, Lesley Groff, or Nadia Marcinkova.8

The agreement further provided that upon its execution and a plea agreement with the State Attorney’s Office, “the federal Grand Jury investigation will be suspended, and all pending federal Grand Jury subpoenas will be held in abeyance unless and until the defendant violates any term of this agreement”.8 See the 2008 Non-Prosecution Agreement.

Ghislaine Maxwell later argued that the clause barred her own prosecution in New York.17 The Second Circuit rejected that argument on September 17, 2024, holding that “Epstein’s NPA did not bar Maxwell’s prosecution by USAO-SDNY as the NPA does not bind USAO-SDNY.”17

The Butterfly Trust

Under a trust agreement dated December 27, 2006, with Epstein as grantor and Darren K. Indyke and Richard Kahn as trustees, the trustees of the Butterfly Trust were authorised, in their “complete and uncontrolled discretion”, to distribute income or principal “to any one or more persons then living from a class consisting of SARAH L. KELLEN, NAĎA MARCINKOVA and GHISLAINE N. MAXWELL”.3 The trust was to terminate, unless the trustees ended it earlier, twenty-one years after the death of the last survivor of Epstein and the same three women.3 In December 2014 the then acting trustees executed an instrument deleting Maxwell and other beneficiaries, whose names are redacted in the released copy, and adding others; Deutsche Bank’s own timeline of the trust dates that change to December 9, 2014.1819

Civil litigation

In Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein, No. 9:08-cv-80119-KAM, in the Southern District of Florida, the plaintiff’s amended request for production, dated December 9, 2008, sought “[a]ny and all documents consisting of, referring or relating to communications between Jeffrey Epstein and Nada Marcinkova”; Epstein’s response, entered on the docket on March 2, 2009, objected and asserted his privileges under the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments.4 On February 26, 2010 the attorney Jack Goldberger filed a third-party motion in the same case for a protective order as to her deposition; the docket records her as the filer.20

She was deposed on April 13, 2010.9 Edwards’s statement of undisputed facts records that the depositions of Kellen, Ross and Marcinkova each ended in an invocation of the privilege against self-incrimination “as to all relevant questions”.9 A filing in Doe v. Epstein, No. 08-cv-80893-KAM, entered on July 2, 2010, records the same invocation.10 The general statement her attorney gave in March 2020 came ten years later, and no answer from her to the questions put at that deposition is recorded on this page.129

The same Edwards filing asserts that Epstein paid for legal representation for a list of his employees and associates, Marcinkova among them; that is an allegation in a party’s filing.21

A civil complaint filed in the Southern District of Florida on September 17, 2010, No. 9:10-cv-81111-WPD, against Epstein and Kellen, alleges that Epstein’s “enterprise operated with a definite hierarchal structure with his various employees/assistants and associates”, naming her among them as “performing their respective roles to ensure the goals of the enterprise”.22 Its claim under Florida’s civil racketeering statute lists her among the individuals it says made up that enterprise.23 She was not a defendant in the case.22 The March 2020 statement addresses no part of that pleading, and no response from her to it is recorded on this page.1222

In Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 15-cv-07433-RWS, Virginia Giuffre’s counsel Sigrid McCawley issued a Rule 45 subpoena to her, dated May 13, 2016, for a deposition on June 16, 2016.2 Giuffre’s counsel later informed the court that, after it authorised service by alternative means on June 20, 2016, Marcinkova and Kellen had not appeared for depositions set for July 21, 2016; that motions for a finding of civil contempt against each of them were filed on July 25, 2016; and that no response had been filed by the return date of August 25, 2016.24

The Maxwell prosecution

“Nadia Marcinkova” appears as item 39 on the “Names for Voir Dire” exhibit, a court list read to prospective jurors and filed with Judge Alison J. Nathan’s post-trial order of February 4, 2022.13 She was not a party to that prosecution.13

Coverage

  • Kate Briquelet, “Is One of Epstein’s Co-Conspirators Suing His Estate?”, The Daily Beast, March 25, 2020, reported that she “is a licensed pilot and flight instructor” and “runs an aviation consulting business called Aviloop”, and carried the statement of her attorney Erica T. Dubno.12

Footnotes

  1. FBI link-analysis chart, Jeffrey Epstein, case 31E-NY-3027571; node label, link label and entry read from the page image. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01653420 ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6 ↩7 ↩8

  2. Subpoena to Testify at a Deposition in a Civil Action, addressed to “NADIA MARCINKOVA (A/K/A NADIA MARCINKO)”, Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 15-cv-07433-RWS (S.D.N.Y.), dated May 13, 2016, filed as part of Document 161-1. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01070810 p.28 ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  3. Butterfly Trust agreement dated December 27, 2006 between Jeffrey E. Epstein as grantor and Darren K. Indyke and Richard Kahn as trustees, Article Third, paragraph A, and the perpetuities provision at paragraph D; the beneficiary class read from the page image. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01282018 pp.1, 3–4 ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6

  4. “Defendant Jeffrey Epstein’s Response & Objections to Plaintiff’s Amended First Request for Production,” Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein, No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA-JOHNSON (S.D. Fla.), Document 57-3, entered March 2, 2009; Request No. 16 and the response to it, read from the page image. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00222049 p.16 ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  5. Proposed indictment carried in “Grand Jury Presentation — Operation Leap Year,” U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Florida; caption and background paragraph 1 read from the page image. Other pages of this production carry pseudonymous complainants’ personal details and are not cited. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00192670 p.22 ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6 ↩7

  6. Testimony of an FBI special agent before Federal Grand Jury 07-103, West Palm Beach, Florida, March 18, 2008, filed as Exhibit C to Document 293-3 in United States v. Maxwell, No. 1:20-cr-00330-PAE; caption read from the page image. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00004663 p.2 ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6

  7. “Epstein Investigation Timeline,” Exhibit A-1 to the written response of AUSA A. Marie Villafaña to the Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility, transmitted 10 May 2019; the exhibit itself carries no author, addressee or date, and is identified from the exhibit index at https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00225378 p.44, entries of August 28 and September 6, 2007, read from the page images. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00224943 pp.11–12 ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  8. Non-Prosecution Agreement, In re: Investigation of Jeffrey Epstein, September 2007, the agreement’s page 5 of 7, filed as Exhibit 1 to Document 6-1 in United States v. Epstein, No. 1:19-cr-00490-RMB (S.D.N.Y.). https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00000290 p.6 ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6 ↩7 ↩8

  9. Same statement, ¶57. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00081180 p.22 ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5

  10. Plaintiff’s filing, Document 197 in Doe v. Epstein, No. 08-cv-80893-KAM (S.D. Fla.), entered July 2, 2010. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00222648 p.17 ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  11. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Professional Responsibility, Investigation into the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida’s Resolution of Its 2006-2008 Investigation of Jeffrey Epstein, filed as Document 204-3 in United States v. Maxwell, No. 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, April 16, 2021, narrative p.263. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00003177 ↩ ↩2

  12. Kate Briquelet, “Is One of Epstein’s Co-Conspirators Suing His Estate?”, The Daily Beast, March 25, 2020. https://www.thedailybeast.com/is-one-of-jeffrey-epsteins-co-conspirators-suing-his-estate/ ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6

  13. “Names for Voir Dire,” court exhibit attached to the order of Judge Alison J. Nathan, Document 593 in United States v. Maxwell, No. 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed February 4, 2022; item 39 on exhibit p.2, read from the page image. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00008863 p.9 ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  14. Same proposed indictment: Count 1 at p.27, the counts table under 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a)(1) at pp.59–60, Count 11 at p.61, Count 21 at p.68, Count 24 at p.69, and the counts table under 18 U.S.C. § 2423(b) and the forfeiture allegation at p.71. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00192670 ↩

  15. Statement of Undisputed Facts of Bradley J. Edwards, Epstein v. Rothstein and Edwards, Case No. 50 2009 CA 040800 (Fla. 15th Cir.), filed as an exhibit to Document 291-15 in Doe v. United States, No. 9:08-cv-80736-KAM (S.D. Fla.), January 21, 2015, ¶20, reproducing “UNITED STATES vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN PLEA PROFFER”. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00081180 pp.11–12 ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  16. Same agreement, terms 1–2 at p.4 and the two versions of its final page at pp.8–9, read from the page images. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00000290 ↩ ↩2

  17. United States v. Maxwell, No. 22-1426-cr, Document 109-1, decided September 17, 2024 (2d Cir.); the holding at document p.4 and the co-conspirators clause at document p.6. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00000002 ↩ ↩2

  18. “Butterfly Trust — Deletion and Addition of Beneficiaries,” acknowledged December 5 and December 9, 2014, executed by the then acting trustees. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01282297 pp.17–18. On both acknowledgments the printed month “November” is struck through in blue ink with “December” written above it and the day written in by hand; read from the page images, the corrections checked on the scan’s own raster rather than an enlarged render. A further copy of this instrument sits at https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01418923 pp.8–9 and the desk does not cite it: that copy is not a scan of the document but a rendering of it — uniform monospaced type on a clean white field, with no paper grain, no skew, no ink and no signatures — and it carries none of the handwritten corrections, garbles the month, misspells a trustee’s surname, and runs the boundary between two sheets into the middle of one page ↩

  19. “Exhibit E: Timeline of The Butterfly Trust,” in a grand-jury exhibit set drawn from Deutsche Bank records. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01681865 p.14 ↩

  20. Notice of Electronic Filing, Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein, No. 9:08-cv-80119-KAM (S.D. Fla.), February 26, 2010, Document 475: “Third Party MOTION for Protective Order as to the Deposition of Nadia Marcinkova by Nadia Marcinkova,” filed by Jack Goldberger. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00207161 p.1 ↩

  21. Same statement, ¶67. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00081180 p.25 ↩

  22. Complaint, No. 9:10-cv-81111-WPD (S.D. Fla.), filed September 17, 2010; caption at p.1 and ¶12 at p.3. The plaintiff sues under initials and is not identified here. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00616147 ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  23. Same complaint, ¶86. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00616147 p.20 ↩

  24. Letter of Sigrid S. McCawley to Judge Robert W. Sweet, September 13, 2016, filed as Document 433 in Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 15-cv-07433-RWS. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00592742 pp.1–2 ↩

Backlinks