22 Avenue Foch

Address, as the instruments give it	”22 Avenue Foch, 75016, Paris, France” in Jeffrey Epstein’s trust instrument of May 1, 2015; “22 Avenue Foch, Paris France 75116” on the asset summary of June 30, 2019; “22 AVENUE FOCH / 75116 PARIS” and “22 AVENUE FOCH / 75016 PARIS” on one sheet of a managing agent’s demand of May 3, 2018123
What is owned	Not the building. An interest in a set of numbered lots inside it: two second-floor lots, one of them with a mezzanine, a third second-floor lot forming their common entrance, two lots on the fifth floor and two cellars in the basement451
Floor area of the four lots whose area is given	382.70 m², 343.50 m², 37.40 m² and 19.70 m²4
Held through	SCI JEP, a société civile immobilière with its registered office at the building, registered at the Paris commercial registry; Epstein signed as its gérant6
Epstein’s stake in that company, as three documents describe it	”999 of the 1,000 outstanding shares”; “direct detention of 99,99 %”; listed among “Corporate Entities Wholly Owned by the Decedent”178
The building	A copropriété managed by Hellier du Verneuil S.A., administrateur de biens; its own papers place it “in Paris 16th district” with a further façade on rue Chalgrin6910
Two values, in two currencies	8,672,823 in a dollar column on the asset summary of June 30, 2019; the same eight digits written “€8,672,823.00” in the estate’s verified inventory, verified February 28, 2020, which converts it at 1.11 to “$9,626,833.00”21112
French wealth tax on it, as his accountant put the figures	”current year tax is 19,124 vs prior year of 22,863”, June 27, 2014; the same message asks Epstein to “advise if ok to pay” and no document read for this page records the payment13

An apartment that reaches the released files as a company’s paperwork. Jeffrey Epstein’s Paris home is almost never described in the documents read for this page. It appears instead as the asset of a French property company he managed, and the company’s life is the paper trail: a power of attorney to attend a meeting of co-owners, a lawyer’s inventory of lots with their floor areas, two of the building’s annual general meetings with their works budgets, a service-charge demand, correspondence about a French wealth-tax return, and estate schedules that do not agree on what the interest was worth or in which currency. This page is about the property and the instruments that name it.

What this page covers, and what it does not

This page makes no allegation and records none. It does not cover any conduct said to have taken place at this address, by anyone, in any forum. It describes no offence, reproduces and characterises no complainant’s account, and counts and describes no complainants. No document cited here is a filing by or about a complainant, and none is cited for anything it records about a survivor or a complainant. Documents in the release that name the address and fall outside that scope are not used here, and that includes an estate schedule of pending litigation, a civil action in which the French company is a defendant and the plaintiff moved to proceed anonymously, and several messages arranging for named or covered individuals to stay at or be admitted to the apartment. Their absence here is a limit on this page and not a statement about the record.

Where the producing party has covered a name, an address or a line on a sheet cited here, this page writes around it. It does not supply the covered words from context, does not characterise them, and does not reason about whom they belong to. It names no member of Epstein’s household staff at this address and no private individual whose only connection to the subject is owning or occupying another flat in the same building, and it reproduces no telephone number, fax number, e-mail address, bank account identifier or date of birth from any document cited here.

This page prints no lot number, unit number or apartment number. The instruments give several, in two different numbering systems; the question of whether this wiki prints a unit number for a private apartment is not settled, so the lots are described here by floor, type and area instead. Nothing on this page turns on which number a lot carries.

The people named here other than Epstein appear as professionals acting in named institutional roles on the face of the documents, and several have their own pages: Darren Indyke, Bella Klein, Richard Kahn, Lesley Groff, Larry Visoski and Harry I. Beller. The estate’s accounting as a whole is on the estate page; the sibling property written from the same withdrawal note is 358 El Brillo Way.

The company: SCI JEP

The fullest description of the holding vehicle is in a one-sheet power of attorney in Epstein’s own name. Headed POUVOIR, it opens “Je soussigné, Jeffrey EPSTEIN,” and gives his address as “6100 Red Hook quarter, suite 3-B, Saint Thomas, USVI 00802 (Etats-Unis d’Amérique)”. It then describes the company and the building together:

agissant en qualité de gérant de la société « JEP », société civile immobilière au capital de 10.000 €, dont le siège social est situé 22 avenue Foch à Paris (XVIème), immatriculée au Registre du Commerce et des Sociétés de Paris sous le numéro D 441 627 171, et propriétaire de droits immobiliers dans un immeuble situé au 22 avenue Foch à Paris (XVIème), dont la gestion est assurée par le cabinet HELLIER DU VERNEUIL, administrateur de biens,⁶

So the company is a société civile immobilière with share capital of €10,000, its registered office at the building itself, and it owns droits immobiliers — property rights — in a building managed by an administrateur de biens. Epstein signs as gérant, the company’s manager.⁶

The instrument gives all powers to “Maître Marie-Joseph EXPERTON, avocat au Barreau de Paris établi à Bruxelles” to represent him in that capacity “à l’assemblée générale annuelle des copropriétaires de l’immeuble situé 22 avenue Foch à Paris (XVIème) convoquée pour le mercredi 30 mai 2012”, with power to vote, to speak for the company, and to sign the attendance sheet and minutes.⁶

The meeting that power of attorney was drawn for is the one the avocat had written about earlier the same month. On May 14, 2012 she wrote to Bella Klein and Darren Indyke together, under the subject “EPSTEIN / Meeting May 30th 2012 - 22 avenue Foch”:¹⁴

Please find attached the letter received by SCI JEP for the annual general meeting scheduled for Wednesday May 30th, 2012, as well as a power of attorney to be signed by Mr. Epstein and to be returned to my attention in Brussels to enable me to attend the meeting.

I will send you an English translation of the letter and a summary of the enclosures in order to get voting instructions from Mr. Epstein.¹⁴

That message reaches the release inside a forward Indyke sent on May 22, 2012 whose body is one line, “Please also print these attachments. Thanks.”; the recipient of the forward is blacked out and is not identified here. Two attachments are named in the forward’s header block, the first of them a file whose name runs together what read as abbreviations for a convocation, a co-ownership, a general meeting and May 2012. Neither attachment was produced with the message, so the convocation letter and the power of attorney the avocat describes are not in that document, and the second of its two sheets carries no ink at all.¹⁴¹⁵

The sheet is executed, and it is executed incompletely. Beneath “Fait en un (1) seul exemplaire,” the place line is filled in by hand as “New York, New York”; the date line reads “Le” and then, printed, “2012,” with the day and month left blank. Above the asterisk a hand has written “bon pour pouvoir” over a signature, which is what the printed footnote asks for: ”(*) signature précédée de la mention manuscrite « bon pour pouvoir ».” Beneath it stands the stamp and signature of a New York notary, Harry I. Beller. All of this was read at the page image; this page does not say whose hand wrote the signature.⁶

Epstein’s stake in the company is given three different ways by three different instruments, and this page resolves none of them. His 2015 trust instrument says he owns “999 of the 1,000 outstanding shares”.¹ A questionnaire from his French tax adviser records “Still direct detention of 99,99 % of SCI JEP”.⁷ The estate’s verified inventory lists the company under the heading “Corporate Entities Wholly Owned by the Decedent”.⁸

What the interest consists of

On July 11, 2011 Darren Indyke asked the Paris avocat for a list. Her reply the same day opens “See attachments and hereafter recap of all units owned by SCI JEP at 22 avenue Foch:” and sets the lots out under three headings — “2nd floor :”, “5th floor :” and, on the next sheet, “basement :”. Two of the second-floor lots carry areas, “(382.70 m2)” and “(343.50 m2)”, the second of them described as being with a mezzanine; a third second-floor lot is given no area and is described as the common entrance to the other two. The two fifth-floor lots are given as “(37.40 m2)” and “(19.70 m2)”. The basement entry gives two cellars and no area. The message lists four attachments, three of them attestations and one a plan of the second floor. Indyke forwarded it on with one line: “Please print and file in existing Paris Apartment file.”⁴⁵

The four areas the avocat gives add to 783.30 m². That is a sum of the figures printed on her sheet and is not a total either document states — but 783.30 m² is exactly the area the tax adviser’s valuation proposal of May 21, 2016 multiplies, which is the only reason the sum is worth doing here.⁴⁷

Epstein’s trust instruments describe the same thing in a sentence. The amendment and restatement of The Jeffrey E. Epstein 2014 Trust, dated May 1, 2015, gives “all of my interest in all apartments, improvements, fixtures, permits and other rights of and pertaining to the premises located in the building known and referred to as 22 Avenue Foch, 75016, Paris, France.” It then enumerates the lots by number and floor, and continues: “The units are currently all owned by SCI JEP, a French company of which I own 999 of the 1,000 outstanding shares.” The gift is made in a separate residence trust to a beneficiary the instrument names, together with “the sum of One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) to pay for the operating expenses for the apartments”, defined to include “property insurance, real estate taxes, utilities, general maintenance and repairs and common charges.” The beneficiaries of that instrument and of the trusts around it are on the page that carries the gift list.¹

The Jeffrey E. Epstein 2019 Trust, dated January 18, 2019, carries the same asset under a defined term. The producing party has covered the beneficiary’s name, the building’s name and the enumeration of lots in that paragraph; this page supplies nothing into those marks. What the sheet prints in the clear, after them, is: “The units are currently all owned by SCI JEP, a French company of which I own 999 of the 1,000 outstanding shares. Such interest is hereinafter referred to as the “Paris Property”.” The operating-expense provision has changed: the 2019 instrument gives “the sum of Ten Million Dollars ($10,000,000) to pay for the operating expenses of the Paris Property and the Florida Property” together.¹⁶¹⁷

The building is a co-ownership, and the company is one owner among several

Everything the released files show about the building itself comes through the copropriété — the co-ownership of which SCI JEP is a member.

A draft English summary of one year’s meeting is in the release. Its four stacked heading lines read “Draft English summary of the decisions / of the Ordinary General Meeting of Co-owners / of the building located in Paris 16th district - 22 avenue Foch, / held on Thursday June 13, 2013 in Paris”. At item 1 the avocat is elected to chair the meeting for SCI JEP, with representatives of two other owning companies as officers; the 2012 accounts are approved; the management agreement with Hellier du Verneuil S.A. is renewed.⁹

The substance of that meeting is building works, and the summary prices them. Successive resolutions cover cleaning the façades of the inner courtyards, cleaning the façade on rue Chalgrin, roofing, and anti-pigeon netting, each with named contractors’ estimates and, beneath them, three stacked lines of additional fees: ”- 8% for the architect, / - 1.5% for the safety coordinator, / - 2.5% for the Property Manager.” The sheet highlights in yellow, line by line, what each resolution costs this owner: “N.B.: Cost of resolution n°14 for SCI JEP: 68,692.82 Euros”, “N.B.: Cost of resolution n°15 for SCI JEP: 5,914.11 Euros”, “N.B.: Cost of resolution n°18 for SCI JEP: 24,403.24 Euros”. On two of them the summary records “Voted against: SCI JEP”. The order for the works was to go out by September 2013 “with advance payments to be made no later than December 31, 2013 in order to benefit from a 7% VAT rate”, and the funds were to be “called in 5 rounds of 20% of the costs each”, on five dates running from September 15, 2013 to May 15, 2014.¹⁰¹⁸

A convocation to a later meeting, circulated as a “Draft English translation for information purposes only”, is addressed to “SCI JEP - Mr. Epstein” and headed “BUILDING: 22 AVENUE FOCH - 75116 PARIS”. Its agenda item 6 reads “Fixing of the projected budget for the year 2017 at 270,000.00 € as for 2016, and fixing of the permanent cash advance at 45,000.00 €.” and records that “The running costs for the year 2016 amounted to 254,245.95 € as shown in the documents attached.” Item 7 fixes the 2018 budget provisionally on the same basis. The same sheet renews a management committee on which the avocat sits for SCI JEP.¹⁹

Service charges, and a special call in 2018

A single sheet from the managing agent shows how the charges reached Epstein. It carries the managing agent’s engraved letterhead, which gives the firm’s name and the words “Administrateur de Biens” in script, and a Paris date of May 3, 2018. It is headed “APPEL EXCEPTIONNEL INDTE GARD.” — an exceptional call for the caretaker’s indemnity — and is addressed to “SCI JEP - MONSIEUR EPSTEIN”, care of an individual this page does not name, at the building.³

The same sheet gives the building’s postcode twice and differently. The reference block at the left ends “22 AVENUE FOCH / 75116 PARIS” under the word “Copropriété” and the building’s file number; the addressee block at the right ends “22 AVENUE FOCH / 75016 PARIS”. This page prints both and reconciles neither.³

A table of lots follows — two cellars in the basement, a duplex on the second floor and an apartment on the second floor, with their tantièmes, the thousandths by which the building’s charges are divided — under the note “Liste complète de vos lots sur demande”, so the four shown are not the whole holding. The charge itself is a general one: a total of “100 000,00” apportioned on “12 070” tantièmes out of “99 700”, giving this owner “12 106,31”. A running account beneath it shows the quarterly call of April 1, 2018, a transfer in, the 2017 charges of “27 228,38” and a repayment of provisions of “34 155,92”, closing on “SOMME A REGLER” of “5 178,77 €”, payable “avant le 18/05/2018”.²⁰

The property in Epstein’s French wealth tax

The works voted in 2013 reached Epstein’s tax return, and the correspondence about it is the clearest account, in the documents read for this page, of what the apartment cost to hold.²¹¹³

Writing to Epstein’s accountant Richard Kahn, the avocat set out how the unpaid works bill could be used: “For proof of the overall amount due by SCI JEP, see attached minutes of the general assembly of June 13th, 2013 and its annexes (approximately: 127,740.79 € for SCI JEP) and of the 2 payments made in 2013. Still due on January 1st, 2014: 3 installments of 25,548.21 € each - see attached copy of the letter received today from HELLIER DU VERNEUIL confirming this amount due in 2014.” She added a warning about what the works would do to the declared value: “NB: Once the works are all over, the value of the building will have to be increased (for 2015), regardless of the annual re-evaluation that you should apply every year.”²¹

The Paris accountant took the point. On June 4, 2014 Yves-André Geismar of F.-M. Richard et Associés wrote to Kahn: “Thanks for this information about the building maintenance of SCI JEP. I will use the unpaid expense (77 K€) as at 31/12/2013 as a liability for the 2014 wealth tax.”²²

Three weeks later Kahn sent the completed return to Epstein, under the subject “Paris wealth tax”, with a file named M._Epstein_ISF_2014.pdf attached:

attached is paris wealth tax return prepared by paris account which i have reviewed current year tax is 19,124 vs prior year of 22,863 accountant says decrease is due to Paris real estate price decrease¹³

He listed what had changed from the previous year — a new car replacing an old one, and “payable of 76,645 at 12/31/2013 for facade cleaning qualifies as a deduction” — and closed “please advise if ok to pay”. The accountant’s own covering message gives the same figures in euros and attributes the fall to “the Paris real estate price slow down, end of 2013”, and asks for the signed forms and a cheque to be sent to the French tax office for non-residents.¹³²²

Two years later the firm came back with a questionnaire for the next return. Under the heading “M. ESPSTEIN wealth situation in FRANCE” — the sheet prints the name that way — it asks about the company holding, a car, and furniture, and then proposes a value for the property itself: “Evaluation proposal for the apartment (22 avenue Foch) : 2014 Value + 0,99 % => 9 2 00 €/m² x 783,30 m² = 7 206 360 €”. The sheet prints the rate with that spacing and the arithmetic is the document’s own. It is a proposal put as a question — the message asks the recipient to say whether significant changes occurred and to give “your appreciation of figures below” — and this page carries it as that and not as a valuation.⁷

Three estate figures, and they are not in the same currency

The documents read for this page do not give one value for this property, and this page prints none of these figures as the value.

An “ASSET SUMMARY - JUNE 30, 2019”, docketed among documents discussed at a bail hearing, lists six properties. The fourth row reads “22 Avenue Foch, Paris France 75116” and gives its value as 8,672,823 in a column headed “Value”, with a dollar sign at the left of the cell. The schedule’s own note says that “All properties are valued at assessed values as per the most recent property tax bills”, and a further note recording that the United States Attorney’s office for the Southern District of New York had stated a different value is keyed, at the image, to the New York house and not to this one.²

The estate’s verified inventory, verified by Darren K. Indyke on February 28, 2020 for values as of December 31, 2019, lists the company rather than the property, at “9,842,122.00”, and explains in a footnote what that figure contains:⁸²³¹²

The assets of SCI JEP included cash on hand and title to property located at 22 Avenue Foch, Paris, France. For purposes of this inventory, the value of the underlying property is estimated at €8,672,823.00, which is based on a valuation previously provided by an independent third party. Using the current conversion rate of 1.11, the value in USD is $9,626,833.00. The underlying property will be appraised, and an updated value will be provided upon completion.¹¹

The same eight digits appear on one court schedule in a dollar column and in the next behind a euro sign. The released text of the inventory does not settle it — it renders the euro sign as the letter f — and the mark was read at the page image for this page. Which document is right about the currency is not something either of them says, and this page does not decide it.¹¹²

The inventory also records that it has moved the figure. Its closing footnote states that the inventory’s total “is $1,335,011.00 greater than the value as of 12/31/2019 included in the first quarterly accounting”, and gives among the reasons “an increase in value of SCI JEP of $954,011.00 (a result of values in Euros being included in the First Quarterly Accounting rather than values in US Dollars)”. It adds that “These increases in value will be reflected on the Amended First Quarterly Accounting to be submitted to the Court.”²³ The first quarterly accounting itself, and what became of the promised amended one, are on the estate page.

The address in the released files

Searched on October 22, 2026, the exact phrase “22 Avenue Foch” appears on 756 sheets of 658 documents, against a corpus of 1,425,556 documents / 2,925,025 sheets; widening to “Avenue Foch” gives 977 sheets of 838 documents, which includes other addresses on the same avenue. “SCI JEP” appears on 81 sheets of 65 documents.²⁴ These are counts of sheets on which a phrase is printed, not counts of events, and a document copied several times in a production is counted once per copy.

What those sheets mostly are is ordinary. The address is where things were sent: an invoice of January 9, 2019 from Apple Retail France is billed and shipped to “HBRK ASSOCIATES INC France / Lesley GROFF / C/O Jeffrey Epstein 22 avenue Foch / 75116 PARIS / FRANCE”.²⁵ And it is the address Epstein himself gave out. Writing to his pilot Larry Visoski on March 3, 2015, under the subject “Re: temp schedule”, his whole message begins “you can come to the apt when you are ready, we are h=re 22 avenue foch” and continues past the cut with a flat designation this page does not reproduce. The sheet prints “h=re” for “here” — transmission encoding surviving onto the printed face of the production copy, not repaired here.²⁶

The meeting held at the apartment in that week, and the office correspondence arranging it, are on Ugo Brachetti Peretti’s page, which carries the instruction Epstein’s office gave a visitor and the three different times three versions of one day’s schedule give.

How the documents on this page were read

Twenty-three sheets, drawn from all fourteen documents cited here, were read at the page image, at each sheet’s own native resolution of 96 pixels per inch rather than at a higher one, and every quotation on this page was checked against the image of the sheet it comes from. One further sheet was read in the released text only, and the footnote for it says so.

Four of the sheets quoted here carry a printed Bates stamp, and on none of them is that stamp the identifier which addresses the document. The sheet of the 2015 trust instrument quoted above prints, at its foot, a stamp reading EFTA_00120729 beside a grand-jury stamp and an orange “CONFIDENTIAL”.¹ The message to the pilot prints EFTA_R1_01639261.²⁶ The two sheets of the 2019 trust instrument each print a grand-jury stamp at the foot on the right, reading GJ_00079 on the first and GJ_00080 on the second.¹⁶¹⁷ Where the foot of a sheet was measured against the body of the same sheet and carries no printed Bates stamp, the footnote for that sheet says so, and the sheet is cited by document and served page with no stamp named for it. The second sheet of one document carries no ink anywhere: measured at the image it has not a single dark pixel, although the released text for it consists of a Bates-shaped string.

Quotations here follow the sheets exactly, including their own spellings and spacing. Where a quotation crosses a line break that is a typesetter’s wrap, the break is rendered as a single space; where lines on the sheet end early and stand on their own, they are marked with a slash and not joined.

Limits of this page

This page does not say when, from whom or for how much the interest was acquired, because no document read for it records the acquisition; nor what became of it after the estate’s inventory of February 2020, because no document read for it records a disposal. It does not say how many rooms the apartment has, what it looks like, when the building was built or who built it. It does not give a floor area for the three lots whose area the avocat’s recap does not state. It does not say whether the power of attorney was ever used at the meeting it was drawn for, because the sheet is the instrument and not a record of the meeting; and it does not say whether the exceptional call of May 2018 was paid.

It prints no lot, unit or apartment number for this property, and reproduces no telephone number, fax number, e-mail address, bank identifier or date of birth from any document cited here. It identifies no one whose name a producing party has covered on a sheet cited here, and draws no inference about who they are.

Footnotes

Footnotes

1. Amendment and Restatement of The Jeffrey E. Epstein 2014 Trust, dated May 1, 2015, Article II, item 27. Read at the image at the sheet’s native 96 ppi. The foot of this sheet carries a printed Bates stamp reading EFTA_00120729, beside a grand-jury stamp and the word “CONFIDENTIAL” in orange; that stamp is not this project’s identifier for the document and is not a web address. The quotations above cross line breaks that are typesetter’s wraps and are rendered as single spaces. The sentence enumerating the lots is omitted between the two quoted spans and the omission is marked in the body by describing it; no lot number is reproduced. The beneficiary named in the item is not named here, and the instrument’s other items are not reproduced. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01266403 p.6 of 24. ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶

2. “ASSET SUMMARY - JUNE 30, 2019”, the third sheet of a three-sheet exhibit. Read at the image at the sheet’s native 96 ppi. The head of the sheet carries two electronic filing stamps printed over one another, a struck-through “SEALED DOCUMENT” and the line “U.S. v. Jeffrey Epstein, 19-cr-490 (RMB)”; the two stamps overlap and this page does not transcribe them. The property rows give six properties, and beneath them a row headed “Total Assets” gives 559,120,954 in the same column and in the same form. Read at the image, the marker keying the note about a different value stated by the United States Attorney’s office sits against the 9 East 71st Street row and not against this property’s row. Two of the island rows carry a mark by the producing party inside the parcel list and nothing is supplied into it. The foot of the sheet was measured against the body of the same sheet and carries no printed Bates stamp. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02845981 p.3. ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴

3. Demand from Hellier du Verneuil S.A., administrateur de biens, headed “APPEL EXCEPTIONNEL INDTE GARD.”, one sheet, dated at Paris on May 3, 2018. The date line is given in words here because the mark between the place and the date cannot be settled at this sheet’s resolution. Read at the image at the sheet’s native 96 ppi. The letterhead’s own registration and telephone lines are blacked out by the producing party. The addressee block names an individual between the company’s name and the street address; that name is not reproduced here. The reference and co-ownership file numbers printed on the sheet are not reproduced. The foot of the sheet carries the agent’s own “Page 1” and no printed Bates stamp. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00798120 p.1. ↩ ↩² ↩³

4. E-mail of July 11, 2011 at 2:57:45 PM EDT from Marie-Joseph Experton to Darren Indyke, subject “EPSTEIN / Privileged and Confidential”, reaching the release inside Indyke’s forward of the same day to Lesley Groff. Read at the image at the sheet’s native 96 ppi. The forward’s own header gives “Mon, 11 Jul 2011 21:18:28 +0000” and lists four attachments, three of them attestations named by lot and one a plan of the second floor; the filenames are not reproduced here because they carry lot numbers. Every e-mail address on the sheet is blacked out by the producing party, as are the telephone lines of Indyke’s signature block; none is reproduced. The lot list is set out on the sheet as headed groups of separate lines and is described above rather than quoted as a run of prose. The foot of the sheet was measured against the body of the same sheet and carries no printed Bates stamp. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00430752 p.1. ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴

5. Same document, served p.2, which carries the third heading and the basement entry, and beneath it Indyke’s original request of the same day: “Can you please provide me with a list of all units at 22 Avenue Foch owned by SCIJEP.” 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 and carries no printed Bates stamp. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00430752 p.2. ↩ ↩²

6. Power of attorney headed POUVOIR, one sheet, in the name of Jeffrey Epstein as gérant of the société civile immobilière “JEP”, for the annual general meeting of the co-owners of 22 avenue Foch convened for “mercredi 30 mai 2012”. Read at the image at the sheet’s native 96 ppi. At the image the quoted passage stands on five justified lines; the four breaks between them are typesetter’s wraps, each flush to the right margin and each falling inside a clause, and they are rendered as single spaces. Beneath “Fait en un (1) seul exemplaire,” the place line is completed in handwriting as “New York, New York” and the date line reads “Le” followed by white space and the printed “2012,”. A handwritten “bon pour pouvoir” stands above a signature marked ”(*)”, and beneath that a New York notary’s stamp and signature. The notary’s commission number, printed on the stamp, is not reproduced here; the released text renders his surname wrongly and the image settles it. The avocat’s Brussels office address is printed on the sheet and is not reproduced. The foot of the sheet was measured against the body of the same sheet and carries no printed Bates stamp, so this is cited by document and served page. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00311150 p.1. ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶

7. E-mail of “samedi 21 mai 2016 16:59” from Sylvie Benabed of F.-M. Richard et Associés to Richard Kahn, subject “Mister EPSTEIN Wealth tax return”. Read at the image at the sheet’s native 96 ppi. The quoted bullets are taken from the block headed “M. ESPSTEIN wealth situation in FRANCE”; the preceding block, headed “M. EPSTEIN personal situation”, is not reproduced and the cut is marked in the body. The sheet prints “EPTSEIN” and “ESPSTEIN” in places and the quotations follow it. The rate in the valuation line is printed with the spacing shown and is not closed up here. The foot of the sheet was measured against the body of the same sheet and carries no printed Bates stamp. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00825239 p.8. ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴

8. Verified Inventory in the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, Probate No. ST-19-PB-80, values stated as of December 31, 2019, verified February 28, 2020. Read at the image at the sheet’s native 96 ppi. Under the heading “Corporate Entities Wholly Owned by the Decedent” the schedule prints “SCI JEP” against “9,842,122.00” with a voucher number beside it, in a list closing “SUBTOTAL $ 426,243,669.00”. The foot of the sheet was measured against the body of the same sheet and carries no printed Bates stamp. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00076491 p.3. ↩ ↩² ↩³

9. Draft English summary of the decisions of the ordinary general meeting of co-owners of the building at 22 avenue Foch held on June 13, 2013. Read at the image at the sheet’s native 96 ppi. The four heading lines are stacked and underlined on the sheet and are marked above with slashes rather than joined into one line. The representatives of the two other owning companies elected as officers are named on the sheet and are not named here. The foot of the sheet was measured against the body of the same sheet and carries no printed Bates stamp. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01115488 p.1. ↩ ↩²

10. Same document, served p.3, resolutions 14 to 16. Read at the image at the sheet’s native 96 ppi. The two “N.B.” lines quoted are printed in italic and highlighted in yellow on the sheet. The contractors’ names and individual estimates are printed on the sheet and are summarised rather than reproduced in full. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01115488 p.3. ↩ ↩²

11. Same sheet, footnote 23 of the inventory, quoted in full above. Read at the image at the sheet’s native 96 ppi. The released text renders the euro sign in “€8,672,823.00” as the letter f; the mark was read at the image and the quotation follows the sheet. The quotation crosses three line breaks, all typesetter’s wraps, rendered as single spaces. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00076491 p.3. ↩ ↩² ↩³

12. Same inventory, served p.6, headed “VERIFICATION OF INVENTORY”. Read at the image at the sheet’s native 96 ppi. It reads “I, Darren K. Indyke, hereby verify that I have read the foregoing Inventory and that I know the same to be true and accurate to the best of my knowledge.” above a date line completed in handwriting as “February 28, 2020” and his signature, with a Florida notarial acknowledgment completed and sealed beside it. The notary’s name and commission number are printed on the seal and are not reproduced here. The foot of the sheet was measured against the body of the same sheet and carries no printed Bates stamp. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00076491 p.6. ↩ ↩²

13. Richard Kahn to “jeffrey E.”, subject “Paris wealth tax”, header “Fri, 27 Jun 2014 12:12:03 +0000”, attachment named M._Epstein_ISF_2014.pdf. Read at the image at the sheet’s native 96 ppi. The three quoted lines are three separate lines on the sheet and are given above as a block, not run together into a sentence; the sheet prints the list markers as “1)” and “2)” where the released text gives “I)”. No e-mail address and no telephone line from this sheet is reproduced here. The accountant’s covering message of June 11, 2014, carrying the same figures in euros and the address of the French non-residents tax office, stands beneath it on the same sheet. The foot of the sheet was measured against the body of the same sheet and carries no printed Bates stamp. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00679826 p.1. ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴

14. E-mail of May 14, 2012 from Marie-Joseph Experton to Bella Klein and Darren Indyke, subject “EPSTEIN / Meeting May 30th 2012 - 22 avenue Foch”, reaching the release inside Indyke’s forward of May 22, 2012. Read at the image at the sheet’s native 96 ppi. The forwarded message’s own header reads “Date: May 14, 2012 3:49:43 PM EDT” and the forward’s own “Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 15:40:44 +0000”. The sheet sets the first part of the quoted passage in bold and underlined and prints the ordinal of the date as a superscript; the emphasis and the superscript are not reproduced. Every e-mail address on the sheet is blacked out by the producing party, including the recipient of Indyke’s forward, and none is supplied here; No address or telephone line from Indyke’s signature block is reproduced here. The released text damages the forwarded subject line and loses the accents of the avocat’s subscription; the image settles both. The foot of the sheet was measured against the body of the same sheet and carries no printed Bates stamp. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00412805 p.1. ↩ ↩² ↩³

15. Same document, served p.2 and the last sheet of it. Read at the image at the sheet’s native 96 ppi: the sheet carries no ink at all — not one pixel below a grey value of 160, against a control of tens of thousands of dark pixels on the first sheet of the same document — although the released text for it consists of a Bates-shaped string. Neither of the two attachments named on the first sheet was produced with the message. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00412805 p.2. ↩

16. The Jeffrey E. Epstein 2019 Trust, trust agreement dated January 18, 2019, Article II, Section 2.3, item 42. The producing party has covered the beneficiary’s name, the name of the building and the enumeration of lots in this paragraph. The two spans quoted in the body are one continuous passage of the paragraph that this page was able to read, crossing two typesetter’s wraps that are rendered as single spaces; nothing is written across a mark and nothing is supplied into one. Read at the image at the sheet’s native 96 ppi; the marks and the uncovered passage were read there. The foot of this sheet carries, at the right, a printed grand-jury Bates stamp reading GJ_00079, which is not this project’s identifier for the document and is not a web address. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00098341 p.11. ↩ ↩²

17. Same instrument, item 43, continuing on served p.12. Read at the image at the sheet’s native 96 ppi. The quotation crosses one line break, a typesetter’s wrap flush to the right margin, rendered as a single space. Where a name in this paragraph is covered by the producing party, nothing is supplied into the mark. The foot of this sheet carries, at the right, a printed grand-jury Bates stamp reading GJ_00080, which is not this project’s identifier for the document and is not a web address. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00098341 p.12. ↩ ↩²

18. Same document, served p.4, resolutions 18 and 19, carrying the third highlighted “N.B.” line and the second “Voted against: SCI JEP”. Read at the image at the sheet’s native 96 ppi. The five calling dates are printed there as five separate dashed lines, September 15, 2013, November 15, 2013, January 15, 2014, March 15, 2014 and May 15, 2014; they are summarised above rather than run together into a sentence. The foot of the sheet was measured against the body of the same sheet and carries no printed Bates stamp. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01115488 p.4. ↩

19. Convocation to the 2017 ordinary general meeting of the co-owners, circulated under the banner “Draft English translation for information purposes only”, addressed “Attention SCI JEP - Mr. Epstein” and dated “Paris, June 14th, 2017”. Both sheets read at the image at their native 96 ppi; the foot of each was measured against the body of the same sheet and carries no printed Bates stamp. The agenda items quoted stand on served p.2. The sheet gives the 2017 budget as “270,000.00 €” and, two lines later, the 2016 budget as “270.000,00 €”, using the English and the French number conventions on one page; both are quoted as printed. The members of the management committee other than the avocat are named on the sheet and are not named here. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00799032 pp.1-2. ↩

20. Same sheet, the lot table, the apportionment table and the running account beneath them. Read at the image at the sheet’s native 96 ppi. The lot table prints a lot number, a building, a staircase, a floor and a door for each line; only the floor and the type of lot are given above. This page reproduces no banking identifier from this sheet, in any form. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00798120 p.1. ↩

21. E-mail from Marie-Joseph Experton to Richard Kahn, copied to Darren Indyke and Bella Klein, replying to his message of “07 May 2014 13:35”, inside the chain forwarded to the Paris accountants on May 20, 2014. Read at the image at the sheet’s native 96 ppi. The quotations cross line breaks that are typesetter’s wraps, rendered as single spaces; the passage beginning “Still due on January 1st, 2014” is underlined on the sheet and the emphasis is not reproduced. Her signature block’s contact lines are blacked out by the producing party. The foot of the sheet was measured against the body of the same sheet and carries no printed Bates stamp. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00679826 p.4. ↩ ↩²

22. Same chain, served p.2: Yves-André Geismar of F.-M. Richard et Associés to Richard Kahn, “On Jun 4, 2014, at 6:44 AM”. Read in the released text for this sheet. The firm’s own confidentiality notice, in French and English, occupies most of the sheet and is not reproduced. Where an address line in this chain is covered on the sheet, it is not supplied here. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00679826 p.2. ↩ ↩²

23. Same inventory, served p.4, footnote 30 of the schedule. Read at the image at the sheet’s native 96 ppi. The quotations cross line breaks that are typesetter’s wraps, rendered as single spaces. The foot of the sheet was measured against the body of the same sheet and carries no printed Bates stamp. The same footnote gives a second increase, for another company, and the inclusion of a further entity; those are on the estate page. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00076491 p.4. ↩ ↩²

24. Counts taken from the released files on October 22, 2026 by exact-phrase search, column-scoped, counting sheets as rows and documents as distinct identifiers. “22 Avenue Foch”: 756 sheets, 658 documents, of which 649 carry an EFTA identifier, 8 a DOJ-OGR identifier and 1 a HOUSE_OVERSIGHT identifier. “Avenue Foch”: 977 sheets, 838 documents. “SCI JEP”: 81 sheets, 65 documents, all with EFTA identifiers. Denominators, measured the same day: 1,425,556 documents and 2,925,025 sheets. An invented phrase run in the same invocation returned 0 sheets and 0 documents, and the phrase “358 El Brillo Way” run in the same invocation returned 4,802 sheets and 2,892 documents, reproducing the figure on the sibling page. ↩

25. Invoice of Apple Retail France E.U.R.L., invoice date “09.01.2019”, date ordered “08.01.2019”, billed and shipped to “HBRK ASSOCIATES INC France / Lesley GROFF / C/O Jeffrey Epstein 22 avenue Foch / 75116 PARIS / FRANCE”. Read at the image at the sheet’s native 96 ppi; the address is printed as five stacked lines and is marked above with slashes rather than joined. The invoice number, the order number, the customer number and the purchase-order number are covered by the producing party on this sheet and nothing is supplied into those marks. This page takes nothing from the line item or the French-language footer. The foot of the sheet carries the seller’s own “Page 1 of 1” and no printed Bates stamp. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00286990 p.1. ↩

26. Jeffrey Epstein to Larry Visoski, subject “Re: temp schedule”, Sent: “Tuesday, March 3, 2015 10:00 AM”. Read at the image at the sheet’s native 96 ppi. The foot of this sheet carries a printed Bates stamp reading EFTA_R1_01639261, which is not this project’s identifier for the document and is not a web address. The message is one line on the sheet; the quotation above is cut before the flat designation and the cut is stated. The sheet prints “h=re” and the quotation follows it. The quoted reply beneath carries a time in a different form from the Sent: field and nothing is derived from either here. No e-mail address from this sheet is reproduced here. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02508275 p.1. ↩ ↩²