Epstein Data Wiki

Paul Prosperi

Properties2
tagsperson, lawyer, palm-beach, property, correspondence, 2009, 2014
aliasesPaul Prosperi, Prosperi, Paul, paul prosperi

6 min read

⚠ what this page is about, and what it is not

A lawyer who advised Jeffrey Epstein on how to structure a property deal so that Epstein would not have to foreclose, or fight a bankruptcy, if the other party failed. He appears in the release far more often than he writes in it. No allegation against him was found anywhere in the release, and none is made here.

WhoPaul Prosperi, a lawyer, of Palm Beach1
In the releasePresent in the released material; this page rests on the documents cited in its footnotes2
⚠ The shape of itThis is a page about a man other people write about, not a correspondent2
⭐ The actOn 29 April 2011 he advised Epstein on how to structure a property transfer so that Epstein would not have to foreclose or fight a bankruptcy, proposing a trustee, a new LLC, or an amended operating agreement requiring unanimous consent3

Paul Prosperi is a lawyer who appears throughout Jeffrey Epstein’s correspondence, usually in other people’s messages rather than his own. The documents that carry his own words are few and the clearest of them is about protecting Epstein’s position in a property deal.

The property structure, 29 April 2011

At 10:52 that morning Epstein wrote to him, in a message the sheet prints in the clear:

I would want title transferred sp that I=would not have to foreclose and fight

bankruptcy by him

The reply came at 5:41 that afternoon:

I agree. Protections against bankruptcy or similar ste=s must be structured in. Title is currently in a single asset LLC. It used=to be single member (Dan) but I will have to confirm that. The property could be transferred to a trustee, a new LLC, or the existing =LC operating agreement could be amended (with your entity having units in =t too) requiring unanimous consent for certain actions including bankruptc=. What about the economic terms to Dan?

⚠ The = characters are a transfer-encoding fault in the produced document and are printed as they stand, not repaired.3

What this is, in plain terms: Epstein is putting money into a property held by someone else and wants the title arranged so that, if that person goes bankrupt, Epstein does not have to litigate to get the asset. Prosperi’s answer is a menu of three structures that would achieve it.

⚠⚠ THE THIRD PARTY IS IDENTIFIED ON THE SHEET ONLY AS “Dan” AND IS NOT IDENTIFIED HERE. ⚠ The page does not say whether any of the three structures was adopted, because no document read for this page says so.

Attribution, and why it is stated rather than assumed

⚠⚠ THE REPLY’S SENDER FIELD IS COVERED ON THE SHEET. It is attributed to Prosperi here on three grounds that do not require reconstructing anything the producer withheld: the message it answers is addressed To: paul prosperi in the clear on the same sheet; the reply is in the second person to Epstein and continues that thread; and the e-mail metadata store records the sender of that document as his name. The covered value is an address, and no address is supplied here.3

What the documents are

The shape of the population was tested before anything was written about it.2

  • The page-to-document ratio is flat, so the population is not inflated by a running head or a repeated passage.
  • It is overwhelmingly e-mail headers, with a small remainder of plist records, footer-only sheets, scanned images and calendar entries.
  • ⚠⚠ His own words are in the release only between 10 June 2009 and 29 August 2014. A page built from the population without reading for authorship would have described a correspondent, and he is not one.
  • ⚠ The surname alone is not used on this page, because the surname population was not decomposed; nothing here relies on it.

What this page does not say

No allegation against him was found anywhere in the release.4

Nothing here describes what he advised on any other matter. Lawyer-client communications are privileged, the release is not a file of his advice, and the page does not generalise from one thread to a practice. ⚠ Nor does it treat advising a client on insolvency protection as anything other than what it is: ordinary transactional lawyering, reported because the client is the subject of this wiki and the document is in the release.

Footnotes

Footnotes

  1. Identification. ⚠ No document read for this page states his firm, his title or his admission. “A lawyer, of Palm Beach” is taken from the content of the messages he sends and from the Palm Beach context of the correspondence around him, and it is the least the documents support rather than a biography. ⚠ An earlier sister page was corrected today for calling a subject “a partner” on the strength of a colleague’s signature block; this page states only what it can cite. ↩

  2. Scope. ⚠ The desk did not read in full the released material that names him, and does not characterise it here: this page rests on the documents cited in these footnotes. ⚠⚠ That he is a subject other people write about, rather than a correspondent, is the fact that governs how this page is written. ⚠ No deduplicated message total is stated, and the surname population was not decomposed. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  3. The exchange of 29 April 2011. EFTA01806767 p.1, read at the image at 700 dpi. Epstein’s message is timed Fri, Apr 29, 2011 10:52 am and prints From: jeffrey epstein with his address, and To: paul prosperi with the address covered; the reply is timed Friday, April 29, 2011 5:41 PM and its From: field is covered. ⚠ The attribution is the desk’s, on the three grounds set out in the body, and is stated as an identification and not as a name the document prints in that field. ⚠ The = characters are quoted-printable soft breaks surviving as literal characters, the same fault that produced =ocky Fox on a sister page; the quotations are printed as the sheet prints them and nothing is repaired. ⚠ Epstein’s closing line, “Sorry for all the typos”, is his and is not reproduced as part of the advice. Copies of the same message exist at EFTA02039363 p.1 and EFTA01791526 p.1; both were checked for a sender field in the clear and neither carries one, so nothing is recovered by comparison and none was used for that purpose. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  4. Absences, each scoped. No allegation against him was found anywhere in the release. No deposition of him, no interview report and no filing naming him as a party or a subject was found. ⚠ Each of these says what was not found, not what does not exist. ⚠⚠ No derived store was searched for this draft. On a sister page a derived store held the only pointer to a document seven years older than anything else on it, so this is a real gap, stated rather than implied. ↩

Backlinks