Epstein Data Wiki

Tim Collins

Properties2
tagsperson, finance, private-equity, ripplewood, kleinwort-benson, bhf, rhj-international, banking, epstein-correspondence, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2014
aliasesCollins, Tim, Timothy Collins, Timothy C. Collins, Tim Collins of Ripplewood

46 min read

Name as printed”Tim Collins” in a sender field and throughout the correspondence; “Timothy C. Collins” in the one regulatory instrument read for this page12
In the release asA private-equity principal whose bank acquisitions are tracked, discussed and courted across four years of Jeffrey Epstein’s e-mail, from 29 May 2010 to 16 July 2014. He is almost always written about; the documents read for this page carry one message he wrote12
The anchorA two-line message of 31 July 2010 from “Tim Collins”, subject “Reading”, which reached Epstein inside a forward, and Epstein’s reply stamped five minutes and twenty-two seconds after that forward’s own stamp: “HE wants to buy another bank in the mideast .. . he did one in egypt”13
Firm named in the documents”Ripplewood”, in a correspondent’s question of 29 May 2010. A press report David Stern sent Epstein in June 2012 calls RHJ International “a 2005 spin-off from the Ripplewood Holdings private equity fund [h]e founded in 1995”45
The transaction the documents followKleinwort Benson Group’s acquisition of BHF-BANK, from a correspondent’s first report of it in September 2011 to a regulatory notice of 29 April 2014 and a message of 16 July 2014 whose share figure matches the block the notice’s unnamed seller received627
Holding figures the documents give”around 14% (tbc)” of Kleinwort Benson on 30 December 2011; “13%” two days later; 8,879,157 shares in RHJ International, 9.75% of its voting rights, on 29 April 2014892
Scale in the released filesSearched on 24 October 2026, the exact phrase “Tim Collins” appears on 291 sheets of 289 documents and “Timothy C Collins” on 14 sheets of 14 documents, against 1,425,556 documents and 2,925,025 sheets. Neither form contains the other: 6 of the 14 lie outside the 28910
ResponseNone appears in any document cited on this page. No statement by him about this correspondence was found in the material searched for this page, and no search outside the released files was made

A private-equity principal whose bank acquisitions Jeffrey Epstein wanted a share of. On 31 July 2010 a two-line message from Tim Collins reached Epstein’s mailbox inside a forward, and Epstein answered that its author “wants to buy another bank in the mideast”, that “he did one in egypt”, and that “we should do one in syria ,, or lebanon, the next two hot spots.”3 Across the correspondence cited here, which runs from 29 May 2010 to 16 July 2014, Epstein’s correspondents report Collins asking them for Chinese co-investors, receiving one of them at his house, and asking a mutual acquaintance whether he should do business with one of them; a regulatory notice of 2014, reproduced verbatim in a message to Epstein, records what he and his affiliated entities held in RHJ International and what two of those entities paid for a stake in the group that bought BHF-BANK. Appearing in the released files is not evidence of wrongdoing, and nothing on this page is a finding of any.

What this page covers, and what it does not

This page makes no allegation and records none. No document read for it names him as a defendant, a subject, a witness or a person of interest in any investigation. It carries no material about any complainant or survivor, and none of the twenty documents cited here is used for anything it records about one.

Several of the most quotable lines in this correspondence come from messages whose sender field the producing party has covered. None of those is attributed to anyone here. Where a message is attributed, it is because a name is printed on the sheet itself, and the footnote says so.

The wider correspondence in which these messages sit reaches people and subjects that are not this page’s: a Cannes invitation, a Syrian contact, an Israeli mining financier, a sanctioned Russian industrialist, and a later exchange about money movement. None of that is reported here, and its absence is a limit on this page and not a statement about the record. David Stern, who is named on eight of the sheets cited below, has his own page, and the royal traffic that ran through him is framed on the Cantor Urramoor page rather than restated here.

Nothing on this page is taken from any source outside the released files. In particular, no biography, directorship, prior transaction, board seat or membership is asserted here that the cited documents do not carry, and the documents carry very few.

Identification: which Tim Collins

“Tim Collins” is a common name, and the bare surname is not a key: "Collins" returns 2,447 sheets across 1,709 documents, which is many times the subject’s file.10 The searches run for this page were made against the full-text index of the released files with exact-phrase queries, and the strings queried are printed here so that the measurement can be repeated.

Neither of the two name forms contains the other. "Tim Collins" returns 291 sheets across 289 documents. "Timothy C Collins" returns 14 sheets across 14 documents, of which 6 lie outside the 289. "Ripplewood" returns 36 sheets across 28 documents, of which 13 lie outside the 289. The union of all three is 304 documents.10 A reader should treat 304 as a floor for this subject’s file and not as its size: it is the yield of three strings, the documents cited on this page were chosen rather than drawn from it at random, and three of the twenty lie outside all three strings altogether.

The identification of the subject of this page rests on two sheets read at the image. The first prints, inside a forwarded block, “From: Tim Collins” over the subject “Reading” and a sending time of “31 Jul 2010 01:45”, and the message is answered by Epstein as being from a man who buys banks.13 The second is a regulatory transparency notice naming “Timothy C. Collins and affiliated entities” as holders of a stated number of shares in RHJ International, reproduced verbatim inside a message to Epstein.2 Between them they give a name in a sender field, a surname in a corporate instrument, a company, and dated acts.

One question this page leaves open. The press report that a correspondent sent Epstein in June 2012 describes RHJ International as a spin-off from “the Ripplewood Holdings private equity fund [h]e founded in 1995”.5 That is a journalist’s sentence inside an e-mail, not a corporate record, and this page reports it as what the message carries and not as an established fact about the subject.

”he did one in egypt”: the messages of 31 July 2010

The earliest act by the subject in any document read for this page is a message of two lines. At “31 Jul 2010 01:45”, under the subject “Reading”, a message from “Tim Collins” reads:

It is a big slice How r u ?

It is addressed to a recipient whose address the producing party has covered, and both copies of it read for this page are forwards rather than the message itself.1 At 8.47 that morning it reached Epstein under the subject “Fw: Reading”, over the single line:

Signs of life from Collins.

The sender field of that forward is covered on both copies read for this page, and no display name is printed in it, so this page does not attribute the forward.1

Epstein replied under the subject “Re: Fw: Reading”, on a stamp five minutes and twenty-two seconds after the forward’s own:

Hes been in london all week. HE wants to buy another bank in the mideast .. . he did one in egypt,, we should do one in syria ,, or lebanon, the next two hot spots.

The spacing, the doubled commas and the three stops after “mideast” are on the sheet.3

Three things are worth separating in that sentence. The first is the tense: “he did one in egypt” is a claim about something already done, and no document read for this page records any Egyptian bank transaction by the subject. The second is the pronoun: “HE wants to buy another bank” is Epstein reporting somebody else’s intention, in a message written minutes after reading two lines that say nothing about banks at all. The third is the first person plural. “we should do one in syria” is not a statement about what Collins would do; it is a statement about what the writer and his correspondent might do, and the correspondent is the party whose name is covered.

May 2010: a flight to Bilderberg, and a warning

Two months before that exchange the subject’s name enters the correspondence as a question about his character. On Saturday 29 May 2010 at 1.11 in the afternoon, a correspondent whose address is covered wrote:

Is Tim Collins of Ripplewood ok guy ? Apart from talking about himself all the time. He has offered to pick me up en route to Bilderberg in plane.

At 5.12 that afternoon Epstein answered:

he is good friends with Jes,, little full of himself. good white house contacts.

The sheet prints the doubled comma after “Jes” and the extra spaces.4 This page does not expand “Jes”. See Jes Staley, who is named in the release under his own name and whose page sets out what the documents give.

The oldest message in that chain is addressed to a named man. Beneath the exchange the sheet prints an earlier message from Jeffrey Epstein dated “Sat, 29 May 2010 09:33:50 -0400” and addressed “To: PETER MANDELSON”, whose body reads “ive called ▮ no answer” with a covered span in the middle of it.4 The senders of the two intervening messages are covered, and this page does not say who wrote them. See Peter Mandelson.

The following morning the flight came up again, in a second chain whose oldest message is also addressed “To: PETER MANDELSON”.11 At 3.32 in the morning a covered sender wrote “And tim collins seems unusually happy I am flying on his plane”; Epstein answered “he should be”; and at 4.10 the next message in the chain, its sender likewise covered, reads “He wants to ‘guide’ me, he says”, which the sheet prints without a closing stop.12 At 8.16 Epstein replied:

good, careful, he talks… re alistair. not a very class act to follow. . the risk is that he has now set up the standard of trash, i would like you as far away from that as i would from chernoy

The sheet reads “chernoy”. The released text of the same sheet reads “chemoy”, a single character’s worth of difference, and this page follows the image.12 Nothing read for this page expands “alistair” or “chernoy”, and this page does not identify either; the same chain separately mentions the published diaries of Alastair Campbell, and that is a different spelling in a different sentence on the same sheet.12 What the message plainly does is use the subject as a measure of reputational risk, and Epstein wrote it to a correspondent he was simultaneously telling “i need your head in moneyland”, a line the sheet likewise prints with no closing stop.12

July 2010: “Seeing Tim Collins in 45 mins”

On Sunday 11 July 2010 at 12.15 in the afternoon, Peter Mandelson wrote to Epstein. The message is one line long:

Home. Seeing Tim Collins in 45 mins. Any suggestions ?

His name is printed twice on the sheet, in the addressee line of Epstein’s reply and again in the attribution line above his own message.13 That reply’s own header is printed too, stamped “Sun, 11 Jul 2010 12:37:43 -0400” under the subject “Re: ask for a job”. The body of the reply is not on the sheet, which is one page long, so no document read for this page records what Epstein answered, or whether he answered at all.13 The subject line is the thread’s, not a description of the meeting, and nothing read for this page says who chose it or what was asked for.

”PA”, and what the documents do and do not say

Three of the documents cited here print the same two letters, and a fourth prints a display name in place of a name.

On Thursday 23 September 2010 at 3.23 in the afternoon a correspondent whose address is covered asked Epstein: “Are you ok if PA and me meet with Tim Collins next week Thursday or Friday?” At 7.39 that evening Epstein replied, in full: “yes”.14 Nothing read for this page records whether that meeting took place.

On 1 March 2011 at 11 at night, David Stern, named in the sender field, wrote to Epstein:

PA wrote me: Tim Collins asked a friend PA and Collins have in common, if he [(]Collins) should do business with me. PA told him that I have his full trust and Collins would be a fool not [t]o do business with me.

The two bracketed characters are supplied: the sheet itself prints “=Collins)” and “not =o do”, transmission damage in the document and not in the released text of it. The double space before “I have” is on the sheet.15

That is a report of a report. It is David Stern telling Epstein what “PA” told him about what “PA” had told a third party about Collins, and the third party is named on the sheet only as “a friend PA and Collins have in common”. No document read for this page carries anything written by “PA”, and this page does not expand the initials, because no document read for this page supplies an expansion. His page records the same reticence about the same initials on other sheets.

Two further sheets print related strings and are reported here as printed and no further. A message of 15 September 2011 from David Stern ends “To use this as platform to combine PA and Chinese wealth seems perfect…”16 And a message from Epstein of 3 November 2010, whose addressee line prints the display name “The Duke” over a covered address, reads:

I would like to talk to you about vacation nov 29- dec5.. would you like to have a private screening of the movie the Kings Speech. we could invite some ” interesting ” people. I want to talk about david and Tim collins. , my up and coming abu dhabi trip. etc in om ▮

The sentence ends under a bar on the sheet, and the released text of it carries no sign that anything is missing; the spacing, the spaced quotation marks around “interesting” and the stray full stop after “collins” are the sheet’s own.17 This page does not say who “david” is on that sheet, and does not join that given name to any other document.

November 2010: the visit to the house

The fullest account of the subject in any document read for this page was written the day after a meeting at his home. On Tuesday 2 November 2010 at 2.55 in the afternoon, David Stern, named twice on the sheet, wrote to Epstein:

Went to tim collins house yesterday.

He wants to proceed but wants a second well known party such as JPM or HSBC to join in.

Reason: if it is exclusive agreement with my entity then i am basically part of KB and in this case I should be subject to their governance and regulatory system. With a second partner there is no danger of that. Model: I decide what deals I want to show them and what deals the other partner. China office not interesting for them, because he is focusing on getting very very few but very large deals done, so KB private banking side is not his focus.

Note: his one son is working for King Abdullah, his other son for Tony Blair.

Epstein’s reply, two words, is “call cell”.18

Who is speaking in the “Reason” paragraph is not settled by the sheet, and this page does not settle it. The paragraph is introduced as the reason for something the subject wants, and it is then written in a first person, “my entity”, “i am basically part of KB”, “I should be subject to their governance”, which could be the writer’s own voice or his transcription of Collins’. It matters, because read one way it is a party to a proposed transaction saying that a second partner would keep his own vehicle outside a regulated group’s governance, and read the other way it is the subject saying so about the writer’s vehicle. The sheet does not disclose which. “KB” is not expanded on this sheet and is not expanded here. See JPMorgan Chase.

The closing note is a claim about two private individuals’ employment, made in a private message, and this page reproduces the sentence because it is what the document says and identifies neither man.

Twenty days later the subject is reported calling again. On 22 November 2010 at 6.29 in the evening a correspondent whose sender field is covered wrote, in a quoted block:

> Tim Collins called. Wants to see me tomorrow to discuss idea of Orascom JV=with Chinese. > Told him I’m busy and little time but will check. > Should I see him?

At 10.31 that night Epstein answered: “Yes”.19 The damaged “JV=with” is on the sheet. Nothing read for this page records whether that meeting happened either, or what became of the proposal.

2011 and 2012: BHF, Kleinwort Benson and a percentage that moves

In September 2011 the correspondence turns to a German bank, and from then on it tracks a live acquisition.

On Tuesday 13 September 2011 at 6.40 in the evening, a correspondent whose sender field is covered wrote to Epstein:

Tim Collins called to ask me for Chinese co-investors for BHF (German private bank owned by Deutsche Bank). He is in the process of buying BHF. His CEO Lenny Fischer will call me tomorrow for details.6

Two days later, on 15 September at 12.41 by a stamp that carries its own zone, David Stern wrote under an empty subject line:

When can I call you? Not knowing what I am talking about, I think the Tim Collins deal sounds great. Spoke to the CEO (Lenny Fischer). Kleinwort Benson Group to acquire BHF Bank in Germany to create leading European Merchant & Wealth Management Bank. Total AuM: Euro 50 billion NAV Euro 850 million Offer: 35% for Euro 270m in the combined Group. To use this as platform to combine PA and Chinese wealth seems perfect…16

The opening question is the message’s own first line and is given here because it is what the writer led with. See Deutsche Bank.

On 30 December 2011 a figure for the subject’s holding appears, and it is hedged on its face. Writing from St Moritz, David Stern reported a dinner at the chief executive’s apartment:

Lenny is the CEO of RHJI, the listed financial services group that owns Kleinwort Benson of which Tim Collins owns around 14% (tbc). Kleinwort are finalising the transaction of buying BHF, largest German independent Private Bank which has EUR 40.6.billion AuM. I sent this to you before. They have confirmed co-investors of around Euro 200m incl US blue chip bank. He is still looking for additional Euro 100m co-investment. Lenny is a decent guy, different to Tim Collins. He will meet me on Sunday and I will find out more.

The stray stop in “40.6.billion” is on the sheet, and so is “(tbc)”, which is the writer marking his own figure as unconfirmed.8

Two days later the figure is different. On 1 January 2012 at 4.46 in the afternoon, a message whose sender field is covered reads in full:

Met Lenny Fischer again, 100m will get 15% in KB Group. He needs min. 50m to close the deal. He has 150m commitments so far. Tim Collins owns 13%. Lenny is a good guy.9

Fourteen per cent, marked unconfirmed, becomes thirteen per cent over two days, with no explanation on either sheet. This page does not reconcile them, and neither figure should be read as the holding: they are one correspondent’s report, two days apart, of what he was told at two dinners. The only holding figure in any document read for this page that comes from a corporate instrument is the one in the 2014 notice below.

In May 2012 the subject’s name appears in a question. A message of 19 May, sender field covered, reads in full:

- we need to get Merkin. Thanks for your help. - The German bank BHF, the one Collins tried to get, could that be the box?20

“the box” is not explained on the sheet and is not explained here, and the two lines are given together because they are the whole of the message. By its date the writer is already describing the acquisition as something Collins “tried to get”, in the past tense, while the acquisition was still in negotiation: a press report of thirteen days later describes RHJ International as having been in negotiations to buy BHF “for coming up to [a] year”, and the notice of April 2014 records it completed.52

On 1 June 2012 David Stern sent Epstein a press report under the subject line “Tim Collins”. The report is headed “Kleinwort parent pressured to spin off assets” and describes activist shareholders holding more than three per cent of RHJ International demanding an extraordinary dividend that “would in effect abort its plan to create a larger banking franchise [a]round Kleinwort”, with the immediate effect of pulling “[t]he plug on RHJ’s planned acquisition of BHF”. It calls the subject “The company’s second-biggest shareholder” and says he “made his name a [d]ecade ago scooping up Long-Term Credit Bank of Japan alongside US [f]inancier Christopher Flowers”, and it reports that RHJ International “tried and failed to buy [o]ut General Motors’ Opel subsidiary in 2009 before bidding for [K]leinwort”.5 Those are a journalist’s statements inside a forwarded message, not a record of the events they describe, and the bracketed characters are supplied where transmission damage ate a letter on the sheet. What the document establishes is that the report was sent to Epstein, under the subject “Tim Collins”, on 1 June 2012.

May 2014: the holding crosses below ten per cent

The one corporate instrument among the documents read for this page arrived in Epstein’s mailbox on 12 May 2014. David Stern, named twice on the sheet, wrote at 1.40 in the afternoon under the heading “Tim Collins has less than 10% as of April 29, 2014” and set out beneath it the text of a transparency notice:

On 29 April 2014, Timothy C. Collins and affiliated entities notified RHJ International (“RHJI”) that their aggregate holding of 8,879,157 shares in RHJI had crossed downward the threshold of 10% of the total number of voting rights in RHJI from 10.37% to 9.75%.

On 26 March 2014, RHJI carried out a capital increase in connection with its acquisition of a 9% stake in BHF-BANK AG. As a result of the issuance of such additional voting rights in RHJI to the seller of BHF-BANK AG, the total number of voting rights in RHJI increased from 85,545,547 to 91,045,745. The aggregate holding of 8,879,157 shares in RHJI held by Timothy C. Collins and affiliated entities consequently decreased from 10.37% to 9.75% of the total number of voting rights in RHJI.

Under a heading “Additional background information” it continues:

In connection with the acquisition by Kleinwort Benson Group (“KBG”) of a 91% stake in BHF-BANK AG which was disclosed by the Company on 27 March 2014, two entities affiliated with Timothy C. Collins, namely Windmere Investments LLC and the Timothy C. Collins 2003 Descendants’ Trust, made an aggregate cash investment of €13.6 million in return for a 2.65% stake in KBG.

Epstein’s reply, sent at 6.40 that evening, is six words: “when does he want to speak?”2

The notice’s own arithmetic holds. 8,879,157 shares of 85,545,547 voting rights is 10.379 per cent, and of 91,045,745 it is 9.752 per cent, so the two percentages the notice prints follow from the share counts it also prints, and the voting rights it reports rose by 5,500,198. Those are divisions and a subtraction between figures on the sheet, and not figures the document gives. The reconciliation matters here because every figure in this passage was read at the page image rather than taken from the released text of it, and the released text of this sheet is demonstrably unreliable: it renders the sheet’s printed reference number with a wrong digit.2

Three things the notice does, and one it does not. It records an act by the subject and entities affiliated with him, notifying a listed company of a crossing; it dates that act to 29 April 2014; and it attributes the €13.6 million cash investment to two named entities affiliated with him and not to him personally. It does not say that his shareholding changed: on its own account the number of shares he and his affiliates held, 8,879,157, is the same before and after, and what moved was the denominator.

Two months after that message a second document names the party on the other side of that denominator, and the same number does it. On Wednesday 16 July 2014 David Stern wrote to Epstein under the subject “KB-BHF”:

Deutsche Bank owns 6% (5,500,198 sahres) of RHJI (Kleinwort Benson / Deustche Bank). I heard today that they would agree to sell for EUR 3,80 per share, price today 3,61

The misspellings “sahres” and “Deustche” and the European decimal commas are the writer’s own, and the passage is quoted from the copy that carries it undamaged.721 5,500,198 is exactly the increase in RHJ International’s voting rights that the April notice reports, so the shares the April notice assigns to an unnamed “seller of BHF-BANK AG” are the shares this message assigns to Deutsche Bank. That identification is a match between two figures on two sheets and is stated on neither of them. See Deutsche Bank.

Epstein’s answer, sent nine minutes after the sending stamp on the writer’s own copy, is two words: “no intest”.7

A compliance listing naming Ripplewood Advisors LLC

One sheet in the release is not correspondence. It is a single page of an internal customer listing, printed in a fixed-width typeface under the word “Walker”, with column headings that wrap across two lines: “Customer Number Customer Name Type * High Risk * Moderate Risk Annual Client Update Due Date Auto Exempt Reason Exemption Reason Customer Owner”. Four rows follow, and the foot of the page prints “For internal use only”.22

The rows were read at the page image, because the released text of this sheet extracts the columns as separate vertical runs and pairs nothing. Read at the image, the row for “Ripplewood Advisors LLC” gives it as a “Client”, with “Y” in the High Risk column, “N” in the Moderate Risk column, “4/19/2017” as the annual client update due date, and “Chuck Walker” as customer owner. The other three rows name two individuals and a second company, each a “Client”; two of the four rows carry “N” under High Risk, so this is not a list of four high-risk clients, and “Customer Owner” is the sheet’s own column heading and not a job title.22 The Customer Number column is covered for all four rows and nothing from it is reproduced here.

Three limits on this sheet, and the third is the one that matters. The document carries no date of its own; the four due dates fall between April and October 2017. The institution that produced it is not identified anywhere on the sheet. And no document read for this page connects Ripplewood Advisors LLC to the subject of this page. A search of the released files on 24 October 2026 for the phrases "Ripplewood Advisors" and "Collins" together returns no document, against 2 documents carrying "Ripplewood Advisors" and 8 carrying "Ripplewood Holdings" with "Collins".10 The company named in the correspondence is “Ripplewood”, and the only expansion of it in any document read for this page is a press report’s “Ripplewood Holdings”.45 They are different company names and this page does not treat them as one.

What the documents cited here do not show

  • No charge, no proceeding, no allegation. Nothing read for this page is adverse to him in any legal sense, and nothing here is a finding against him.
  • Almost no words of his own. Of the twenty documents cited here, exactly one carries anything he wrote, and it is two lines long.1 Everything else is other people reporting him, quoting him, or writing about him, and several of the sharpest of those reports come from messages whose senders the producing party has covered.
  • No Egyptian transaction. Epstein’s “he did one in egypt” is the only reference to one in any document read for this page, and no document read for this page records it.3
  • Almost nothing completed. The documents cited here carry four prospective meetings with the subject and one offered flight on his aircraft. Only the visit to his house is reported as having happened, and that is reported the day after, by the man who made it.413141819
  • No outcome for the Chinese co-investment. The subject is twice reported turning to a correspondent over Chinese money, for a joint venture in November 2010 and for co-investors in BHF in September 2011, and no document read for this page records whether any Chinese co-investor was ever found.196
  • No response. No statement by him about any of this material appears in the documents cited here. No search outside the released files was made for this page, so this is a statement about the release and about nothing else, as at 24 October 2026.
  • The file is larger than this page. The three name forms measured above reach 304 documents between them and this page cites twenty. Anything said here about what the correspondence does not contain is bounded by the queries printed above and by nothing wider.

How the documents on this page were read

Twenty documents are cited here, carrying 25 sheets between them. Twenty-one of those 25 sheets were read at the page image, each rendered at its own native resolution of 96 ppi rather than upsampled: the first sheet of every one of the twenty documents, and the second sheet of the four-sheet chain of 30 May 2010. For each document the page count of the served file was reconciled against the number of sheets this project’s index holds for it, and all twenty agreed. A request for an identifier that exists nowhere was made in the same session and failed, so the successful fetches are real.

Four sheets were not opened at the image, and nothing on this page rests on them: the second sheet of the chain of 29 May 2010, the third and fourth sheets of the chain of 30 May 2010, and the second sheet of the June 2012 press forward. In the released text the first three carry nothing but the repeated standing confidentiality trailer, and the fourth carries nothing but message-store furniture.

The page images were worth opening, and four times they changed what this page prints. On the sheet of 30 May 2010 the released text reads “chemoy” where the sheet prints “chernoy”. On the sheet of 29 May 2010 the released text drops a full stop that the sheet prints after “himself”. On the 2014 notice the released text renders the sheet’s printed reference number with a wrong digit and loses a separator from it. On the message to “The Duke” the released text carries no sign of the bar under which that message’s last sentence ends. Each of those was settled at the image and the image is followed here.

Quotations here follow the sheets exactly, including the sheets’ own spellings, spacing and punctuation. Where a quotation crosses a line break in a wrapped paragraph of the source, the break is rendered as a single space and nothing else is changed. Where a character was destroyed in transmission before the document was printed, the supplied character is in square brackets and the footnote says so. Where the producing party has covered a span inside a quotation, the cover is marked ▮ and nothing is supplied into it. No e-mail address, telephone number, account or customer number, or other contact or identity value printed on any of these sheets is reproduced on this page.

Footnotes

Footnotes

  1. Forwarded message, one sheet, subject “Fw: Reading”, “Sent Sat 7/31/2010 8:47:37 AM”, body “Signs of life from Collins.” above a block headed “------Original Message------” reading “From: Tim Collins”, “Subject: Reading”, “Sent: 31 Jul 2010 01:45”, and the two lines “It is a big slice” / “How r u ?”. Read at the image at the sheet’s native 96 ppi; the sheet carries the printed Bates stamp EFTA_R1_01469055. The “From:” field of the forward itself is covered by the producing party and no display name is printed in it; the recipient address of the Collins message is likewise covered. Neither is supplied here. The same forwarded block is reproduced inside the reply at 3, whose own sheet was also read at the image and whose forwarder is covered there too; on neither sheet is a display name printed for it. The released text of this sheet renders the space before the question mark as present, and the image confirms it. An address printed in the “To:” field of this sheet is not reproduced here. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02409070 p.1. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6 ↩7

  2. Jeffrey Epstein to David Stern, one sheet, subject “Re:”, “Sent Mon 5/12/2014 6:40:34 PM”, body “when does he want to speak?”, quoting a message of “On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 1:40 PM, David Stern <” over a covered address. Read at the image at the sheet’s native 96 ppi; the sheet carries the printed Bates stamp EFTA_R1_00366916. The released text of this sheet renders that stamp as “EFTA R1_00366816”, with a wrong digit and a lost separator, and the image is the reading. The name “David Stern” is printed twice on the sheet, in the addressee line and in the attribution line; both addresses are covered and neither is supplied here. The quoted material is a transparency notice reproduced verbatim inside the message, under the writer’s own heading “Tim Collins has less than 10% as of April 29, 2014”, and its paragraphs are quoted above in the sheet’s own paragraphing with the wrapped line breaks rendered as spaces. The released text of the notice renders “shares in RHJI” as “shares In RHJI”, the hyphen in “BHF-BANK” as a bullet, and “RHJI’s corporate website” as “Ftlirs corporate website”; the image is the reading in each case, and every figure quoted above was read at the image. The notice’s own next sentence, not quoted above, records that a copy of the notification “is reproduced hereunder and available on RHJI’s corporate website under “Investor Relations - Shareholder Information - Transparency Rules"", and no such copy stands on this sheet. The standing confidentiality trailer beneath is not quoted. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01922767 p.1. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6 ↩7 ↩8

  3. Jeffrey Epstein, one sheet, subject “Re: Fw: Reading”, “Sent Sat 7/31/2010 8:52:59 AM”, quoting the forward of 8.47 and the Collins message beneath it. Read at the image at the sheet’s native 96 ppi; the sheet carries the printed Bates stamp EFTA_R1_00187622. The “From:” field prints “Jeffrey Epstein”; the released text of the same field reads “e ey ps ein” and the image is the reading. The quoted passage is a single wrapped paragraph on the sheet and its line break is rendered above as a space; the four spaces after “week.”, the three after “egypt,,”, the three before ”,, or lebanon” and the sequence “mideast .. . he” are as printed. The attribution line above the quoted forward reads “On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 10:47 AM,” followed by a covered span and the word “wrote:”, a clock value two hours later than the forward’s own header stamp and later than this reply’s; neither stamp carries a printed zone and no sequence between them is asserted here beyond the order of nesting. The “To:” field of this message is covered. The standing Epstein confidentiality trailer beneath is not quoted. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01816291 p.1. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6

  4. Jeffrey Epstein, two sheets, subject “Re:”, “Sent Sat 5/29/2010 5:12:41 PM”, quoting a message of “Sat, May 29, 2010 at 1:11 PM” and three further messages beneath it. Sheet 1 read at the image at the sheet’s native 96 ppi; it carries the printed Bates stamp EFTA_R1_00183976. The body quoted above prints “Jes,,” with a doubled comma, a double space after it and double spaces around “of”; the released text of this sheet drops the full stop the sheet prints after “himself”, and the image is the reading. The senders of the 1.11 PM and 10.52 AM messages are covered and no display name is printed for either; neither is attributed here. The oldest message on the sheet is from Jeffrey Epstein, “Date: Sat, 29 May 2010 09:33:50 -0400”, with an empty subject line, addressed “To: PETER MANDELSON<” over a covered address, and its body reads “ive called” followed by a covered span and then “no answer”; the released text of that line reads “hie called / no answer” with no sign of the covered span, and the image is the reading. Sheet 2 was not opened at the image and carries nothing in the released text but the repeated standing confidentiality trailer; nothing on this page rests on it. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01813479 p.1. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5

  5. David Stern to Jeffrey Epstein, two sheets, “Sent: Friday, June 1, 2012 9:29 AM”, subject “Tim Collins”, carrying a press report headed “Kleinwort parent pressured to spin off assets”. Sheet 1 read at the image at the sheet’s native 96 ppi; it carries the printed Bates stamp EFTA_R1_01715286. The sender field prints the name over a covered address, which is not supplied here; the “To:” field prints “Jeffrey Epstein” with no address. The sheet is damaged throughout in transmission, a character of many words having been replaced by an equals sign, and the characters supplied above in square brackets are those destroyed ones; nothing the sheet actually carries is altered. The report names a hedge fund, its chief investment officer, a bank’s analysts, a market capitalisation of “€343m”, a cash figure of “€266m” and a special dividend of “€2.40 per share”, and quotes an unnamed shareholder; those are the report’s own statements and are not adopted here. Sheet 2 was not opened at the image and carries nothing in the released text but message-store furniture; nothing on this page rests on it. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02556617 p.1. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5

  6. One sheet, no subject line printed, addressed to Jeffrey Epstein, “Sent Tue 9/13/2011 6:40:08 PM”. Read at the image at the sheet’s native 96 ppi; the sheet carries the printed Bates stamp EFTA_R1_00252175. The “From:” field is covered by the producing party and no display name is printed in it, so this page does not attribute the message. The body is given above in full and is a single wrapped paragraph whose two line breaks are rendered as spaces. An address printed in the “To:” field is not reproduced here. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01855333 p.1. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  7. Jeffrey Epstein to David Stern, one sheet, subject “Re: KB-BHF”, “Sent Wed 7/16/2014 6:38:20 PM”, body “no intest”, quoting the message of 21 beneath an attribution line reading “On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 2:28 PM, David Stern <” over a covered address. Read at the image at the sheet’s native 96 ppi; the sheet carries the printed Bates stamp EFTA_R1_00352953. The name “David Stern” is printed twice on the sheet, in the addressee line and in the attribution line; both addresses are covered and neither is supplied here. The quoted passage is undamaged on this copy and is quoted above from it, including the two spaces after “sahres)” and the writer’s own “sahres” and “Deustche”. The attribution line’s clock value is four hours and one minute earlier than the sending stamp on the writer’s own copy at 21; neither carries a printed zone, and no sequence between them is asserted here beyond the order of nesting. The interval given in the body is between the two sending stamps, which are both in the producing party’s own header format. The standing confidentiality trailer beneath is not quoted. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01914359 p.1. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  8. David Stern to Jeffrey Epstein, one sheet, no subject line printed, “Sent: Fri 12/30/2011 6:28:18 PM”. Read at the image at the sheet’s native 96 ppi; the sheet carries the printed Bates stamp EFTA_R1_00229707. The sender field prints the name with no address after it, and there is no covered span anywhere on this sheet. The passage above is quoted in the sheet’s own line breaks, with the breaks inside each sentence rendered as spaces; “40.6.billion”, “(tbc)” and “incl” are as printed. The sheet also carries a sentence about another guest at the same dinner which is not reproduced here. An address printed in the “To:” field is not reproduced. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01842628 p.1. ↩ ↩2

  9. One sheet, no subject line printed, addressed to Jeffrey Epstein, “Sent Sun 1/1/2012 4:46:40 PM”. Read at the image at the sheet’s native 96 ppi; the sheet carries the printed Bates stamp EFTA_R1_00229722. The “From:” field is covered by the producing party and no display name is printed in it, so this page does not attribute the message. The body is given above in full. An address printed in the “To:” field is not reproduced here. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01842638 p.1. ↩ ↩2

  10. Counts taken from the released files on 24 October 2026 by exact-phrase search of the full-text index, column-scoped, with the queried strings printed here. "Tim Collins": 291 sheets, 289 documents. "Timothy C Collins": 14 sheets, 14 documents, of which 6 documents are not in the set of 289. "Timothy Collins": 1 sheet, 1 document. "Ripplewood": 36 sheets, 28 documents, of which 13 are not in the set of 289. "Ripplewood Holdings": 14 sheets, 13 documents. "Ripplewood Advisors": 2 sheets, 2 documents. "Collins": 2,447 sheets, 1,709 documents. The union of the three name-and-firm forms is 304 documents. "Ripplewood Advisors" AND "Collins": 0 documents; the control for that zero is "Ripplewood Holdings" AND "Collins", run in the same form in the same invocation, which returns 8 documents. An invented phrase run in the same invocation returned 0 sheets and 0 documents. Denominators, measured the same day: 1,425,556 documents and 2,925,025 sheets. These are counts of sheets and documents on which a string is printed, not counts of events, and a document copied more than once in a production is counted once per copy. The second document returned by the "Ripplewood Advisors" query was opened for this page and nothing from it is used here: what it carries falls in a class this page does not reproduce for anyone. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  11. Same document, served p.2, the document’s own second sheet. Read at the image at the sheet’s native 96 ppi; the sheet carries the printed Bates stamp EFTA_R1_00182411, and beneath it a second printed identifier one higher than the document’s own, so the identifiers on this run increment per sheet and this page cites by document and served page. The oldest message on the sheet is from Jeffrey Epstein, “Date: Sat, 29 May 2010 19:21:36 -0400”, with an empty subject line, addressed “To: PETER MANDELSON<” over a covered address, and reads “tom pritsker thinks than canning fok would take jes somewhat more serioulsy than you alone. / what do you think?” The spelling is the sheet’s. The senders of the 3.22 AM and 3.02 AM messages above it are covered and neither is attributed here. The two further names in that line are printed as “tom pritsker” and “fok” and are not expanded here. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01812311 p.2. ↩

  12. Jeffrey Epstein, four sheets, subject “Re:”, “Sent Sun 5/30/2010 8:16:08 AM”, quoting a chain of earlier messages that continues onto the second sheet. Sheet 1 read at the image at the sheet’s native 96 ppi; it carries the printed Bates stamp EFTA_R1_00182410. The quoted body above is a single wrapped paragraph and its line break is rendered as a space; the double spaces around “not”, the sequence “follow. .” and the three spaces after “trash,” are as printed, and both occurrences of the pronoun are the sheet’s own lower-case “i”. The sheet prints “chernoy”; the released text of the same sheet prints “chemoy”, and the image is the reading. The senders of the messages of 4.10 AM, 3.32 AM and 3.30 AM are covered and no display name is printed for any of them; none is attributed here. On the same sheet Epstein’s message of “Sun, 30 May 2010 03:30:35 -0400” reads “yes , but he has no commercial aspirations at your level,, i need your head in moneyland”, with the doubled comma as printed, and the 3.30 AM message beneath it reads “Btw, Alastair Campbell diaries (Guardian yesterday) sd help make my book look tame and sober.” Sheets 3 and 4 were not opened at the image and carry nothing in the released text but the repeated standing confidentiality trailer; nothing on this page rests on them. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01812311 p.1. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  13. One sheet carrying a header block and a quoted chain, no body of its own for the top message. Read at the image at the sheet’s native 96 ppi; the sheet carries the printed Bates stamp EFTA_R1_00499828. It prints “From: Jeffrey Epstein <” and his own address, “Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 12:37:43 -0400”, “To: PETER MANDELSON<” over a covered address, and “Subject: Re: ask for a job”, running straight on into “On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 12:15 PM, PETER MANDELSON <” over a covered address, “wrote:” and then the quoted message “Home. Seeing Tim Collins in 45 mins. Any suggestions ?” with the space before the question mark as printed. Nothing stands between the subject line and the quoted message, so this document carries no body for Epstein’s reply. The reply’s stamp carries a printed zone and the quoted message’s does not, so no interval between them is asserted here. Addresses printed on this sheet are not reproduced. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02002567 p.1. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  14. Jeffrey Epstein, one sheet, subject “Re:”, “Sent Thur 9/23/2010 7:39:20 PM”, body “yes”, quoting a message of “On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 3:23 PM” reading “Are you ok if PA and me meet with Tim Collins next week Thursday or Friday?”. Read at the image at the sheet’s native 96 ppi; the sheet carries the printed Bates stamp EFTA_R1_00179980. The sender of the quoted message is covered and no display name is printed for it; it is not attributed here. The “To:” field of the reply is covered. The standing Epstein confidentiality trailer beneath is not quoted. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01810510 p.1. ↩ ↩2

  15. David Stern to Jeffrey Epstein, one sheet, no subject line printed, “Sent: Tuesday, March 1, 2011 11:00 PM”. Read at the image at the sheet’s native 96 ppi; the sheet carries the printed Bates stamp EFTA_R1_00096300. The sender field prints the name over a covered address, which is not supplied here; the “To:” field prints “Jeffrey Epstein” with no address. The sheet itself prints “=Collins)” and “not =o do”: the damage is in the document as printed, not in the released text of it, and the two characters supplied above in square brackets are the destroyed ones. The double space before “I have his full trust” is on the sheet. Beneath the message the sheet prints a message-store property list; no value from it is reproduced here. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01779226 p.1. ↩

  16. David Stern to Jeffrey Epstein, one sheet, “Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 12:41:17 +0000”. Read at the image at the sheet’s native 96 ppi. The foot of the sheet was measured against the body of the same sheet: it prints the document’s own identifier and carries no second stamp, so this is cited by document and served page and no Bates stamp is named for it. The sender field prints the name over a covered address, which is not supplied here; the “To:” field prints the name and an address of Epstein’s, which is not reproduced. The “Subject:” label is printed with nothing after it: the subject line is empty, not covered. The body is given above in full, in the sheet’s own line breaks, and the four stops after “perfect” are as printed. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00682939 p.1. ↩ ↩2

  17. Jeffrey Epstein, one sheet, no subject line printed, “Sent Wed 11/3/2010 4:39:23 PM”, addressed “To: The Duke[” over a covered address. Read at the image at the sheet’s native 96 ppi; the sheet carries the printed Bates stamp EFTA_R1_00468061. The body is a single wrapped paragraph and its two line breaks are rendered above as spaces. The spaced quotation marks around “interesting”, the double stop after “dec5”, the double spaces, and the stray stop and comma after “Tim collins” are as printed. The last words of the body, “etc in om”, are followed by a covered span, marked ▮ above; the released text of this sheet carries no sign of it, and the image is the reading. The released text also renders “people” as “pco le” and the image is the reading there too. The display name “The Duke” is quoted as printed and is not expanded here. The standing Epstein confidentiality trailer beneath is not quoted. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01980132 p.1. ↩

  18. Jeffrey Epstein to David Stern, one sheet, subject “Re:”, “Sent Tue 11/2/2010 1:57:24 PM”, body “call cell”, quoting a message of “On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 2:55 PM, David Stern <” over a covered address. Read at the image at the sheet’s native 96 ppi; the sheet carries the printed Bates stamp EFTA_R1_00468444. The name “David Stern” is printed twice on the sheet, in the addressee line and in the attribution line; the addresses in both are covered and neither is supplied here. The quoted message is given above in full, in the sheet’s own paragraphing; the “Reason:” and “China office” paragraphs wrap on the sheet and those breaks are rendered as spaces. The released text renders the surname as “Stem” in both places and the image is the reading. The reply’s header stamp is just under an hour earlier than the quoted message’s, neither carries a printed zone, and no sequence between them is asserted here beyond the order of nesting. The standing Epstein confidentiality trailer beneath is not quoted. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01980338 p.1. ↩ ↩2

  19. One sheet, subject “Re:”, from an address of Epstein’s, “Sent: Monday, November 22, 2010 10:31 PM”, body “Yes” above the line “Sorry for all the typos .Sent from my iPhone”, quoting a message of “On Nov 22, 2010, at 6:29 PM” whose three lines are each prefixed ”> ” on the sheet. Read at the image at the sheet’s native 96 ppi; the sheet carries the printed Bates stamp EFTA_R1_00143027. The sender of the quoted message is covered and no display name is printed for it; it is not attributed here. The “To:” field of the reply is covered. “JV=with” is printed that way on the sheet, transmission damage in the document, and is not repaired here. Beneath the message the sheet prints a message-store property list; no value from it is reproduced here. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01801774 p.1. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  20. One sheet, no subject line printed, addressed to Jeffrey Epstein, “Sent Sat 5/19/2012 12:57:01 PM”. Read at the image at the sheet’s native 96 ppi; the sheet carries the printed Bates stamp EFTA_R1_00297238. The “From:” field is covered by the producing party and no display name is printed in it, so this page does not attribute the message. The two lines above are the whole of the body, each opening with a hyphen on the sheet. An address printed in the “To:” field is not reproduced here. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01883202 p.1. ↩

  21. David Stern to Jeffrey Epstein, one sheet, subject “KB-BHF”, “Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2014 6:29 PM”. Read at the image at the sheet’s native 96 ppi; the sheet carries the printed Bates stamp EFTA_R1_01766162. The sender field prints the name over a covered address, which is not supplied here; the “To:” field prints “Jeffrey Epstein” with no address. This copy is damaged in transmission at two points of the passage quoted above, a character of “Deustche” and a character of “price” having been replaced by an equals sign, so the quotation in the body is taken from the copy at 7, which prints both words whole. Beneath the message the sheet prints a message-store property list; no value from it is reproduced here. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02586186 p.1. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  22. One sheet of an internal customer listing, undated on its face, printed in a fixed-width typeface. Read at the image at the sheet’s native 96 ppi. The foot of the sheet was measured against the body of the same sheet: it prints the document’s own identifier and carries no second stamp, so this is cited by document and served page and no Bates stamp is named for it. The sheet prints the word “Walker” alone on its first line, then the column headings wrapped over two lines, then four data rows, then “For internal use only”. Read at the image the rows pair as follows: “Ripplewood Advisors LLC” / Client / High Risk Y / Moderate Risk N / 4/19/2017 / Chuck Walker; “Cohen, Lawrence” / Client / N / Y / 9/29/2017 / Chuck Walker; “Lorani Partners Corporation” / Client / N / Y / 10/7/2017 / Chuck Walker; “Podesta, Anthony” / Client / Y / N / 10/17/2017 / Chuck Walker. The released text of this sheet extracts the columns as separate vertical runs, in which no row’s values sit beside its own name, so the pairing above was established at the image and not from the released text. The Customer Number column is covered for all four rows and no value from it is reproduced here. No institution is named anywhere on the sheet. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01398948 p.1. ↩ ↩2

Backlinks