Epstein Data Wiki

Art Purchases and Auction Sales

Properties1
tagstopic, art, sothebys, christies, haze-trust, consignment, auction, giacometti, braque, like-kind-exchange

29 min read

What this page coversThe paper trail of buying and selling art: who instructed whom, what the instrument called the object, what was paid, what was received, and on what date. It does not describe what any work of art depicts123
The purchaseOn 23 November 2016 Jeffrey Epstein authorised a wire of “the 30 million” for two works offered through a Chicago deferred-exchange company, allocated by Darren Indyke as “Giacometti for $25MM and Braque FOR $5MM”45
A second figure for the same objectThe draft bill of sale for the Giacometti prints a purchase price of $27,000,000. Indyke, writing the same morning, and the trust’s own wire memorandum both give $25,000,000. No sheet read for this page reconciles them156
The seller of recordCDECRE Artwork EAT LLC, care of Chicago Deferred Exchange Company, 135 S. LaSalle Street, Chicago. The buyer line of the released copy reads “[JEE ENTITY]“1
The consignmentOn 11 May 2017 Sotheby’s London wrote to The Haze Trust confirming instructions to sell an Alberto Giacometti bronze, estimated at £15,000,000 to £25,000,000, with no seller’s commission charged and 8 per cent of the hammer price returned to the seller out of the buyer’s premium2
The Christie’s saleLot 5A of the Impressionist and Modern Art Evening Sale of 15 May 2017, a Georges Braque, sold at a hammer price of $8,800,000. The settlement statement of 19 June 2017 deducts $1,075,000 described only as “Upside” and pays The Haze Trust $7,725,0003
The Sotheby’s saleSale L17006, lot 0057, 22 June 2017. Sotheby’s paid The Haze Trust £8,532,000.00 on 25 September 2017, which Richard Kahn reported to Epstein the same afternoon as a dollar wire “on 50% of giacometti”78
What the bank records showThree credits from the two auction houses reached a trust checking account in 2017: $7,725,000, $11,536,544 and $11,249,417, together $30,510,9619
The unexplained oneNo document read for this page identifies any work behind the third credit, of 24 October 2017910
Earlier, at the other end of the scaleIn July 2011 the same office consigned a pair of armchairs held in Paris, estimated by Sotheby’s Paris at 10 to 15 thousand euros1112

Art leaves instruments. A bill of sale names the object and the price; a consignment letter names the estimate, the commission and the settlement date; a settlement statement names the lot, the hammer price and the deductions; a payment advice names the sale and the sum. For two works that passed through Jeffrey Epstein’s hands in the eight months between November 2016 and June 2017, the released files contain all four, and they can be read against a table of transactions later compiled from Deutsche Bank’s records. The sequence is unusually complete, and where it breaks, it breaks in places worth naming.

This page is about transactions, not pictures. It reports what the documents say each object is as an object: artist, title, medium, dimensions, date, price, and who paid whom on what day. It does not describe, categorise or enumerate what any work of art depicts, and it does not reproduce account numbers or wire routing details from the instruments it cites, several of which carry them. It does print the identifiers an instrument attaches to a transaction, such as the lot, the sale and the remittance, because those are what let one document be checked against another.

2011: learning the procedure

The office did not begin with a standing arrangement. On Friday 17 June 2011 a member of Epstein’s staff wrote to a colleague: “do you have contact info for Sotheby’s or Christies? I have a bunch of things for auction at 71st and I’ve never done it before. I think JE has/had an account with each place, but not sure of the procedure, if I should email someone with photos first of the items, etc..”13

The reply, three days later, named two people at Christie’s in New York and one at Sotheby’s, and set out the method in two sentences: “The best way to start is to send pictures of the items you want to sell. From there, they will pass the items on to the various appraisal departments to get estimated auction prices and to say if they want to sell it or not.”13

A month later that method was used. On Tuesday 19 July 2011 the office wrote to Alejandra Rossetti at Sotheby’s: “Jeffrey has 2 of these chairs in Paris=which he wishes to auction off. I’m wondering if you could give me the name and contact information =or someone at Sotheby’s in Paris to see if they might be interested in =hem.” The equals signs in that sentence are printed on the paper, for the reason set out below. Six photographs are listed as attachments.12

Two days later Lily D. Snyder of Sotheby’s Private Client Group relayed the Paris specialist’s assessment. It runs across two sheets of the printout. The first gives the object: “Attractive pair of mahogany armchairs, circa 1830”. The second gives the number and the calendar: “10-15.000€ / Our next auction will be in spring 2012 as we have just closed the 30th of September =ale.”12

The office replied the same afternoon: “We would like to put these chairs in the Paris spring =010 auction. What would be the next step?” The year in that sentence is not on the paper. The released document is a printout of an email whose characters have been partly replaced by equals signs throughout, so that “sale” prints as “=ale” and “specialist” as “=pecialist”; the digit in the year is one of the casualties. What the specialist had written two hours earlier was that the next auction would be in spring 2012.12

Snyder’s answer set the mechanics going and, in passing, described how the auction house held the client. “Great. I will have the administrator in the Paris department create the consignment and contract and then the department can assist you in tranfering the chairs to our Paris office.” Then a question: “Just to be sure, would you please confirm which of Mr. Epstein’s accounts he would like to use for the consignment? We have one associated with an address at 457 Madison Avenue. And a second one associated with the address: 358 El Brillo Way.”11

Twenty minutes later she reported the clean-up: “The address in our system was outdated for Mr. Epstein and is now being updated to the 9 East 71st Street address. Also, there were two accounts for Mr. Epstein is the system and they are now being associated to avoid further confusion.”14

So in July 2011 Sotheby’s held Epstein under two separate client accounts, one filed to a Madison Avenue address and one to 358 El Brillo Way, and consolidated them under the 9 East 71st Street address in the course of taking in a pair of chairs valued in five figures. No document read for this page records whether the chairs were ever catalogued or sold.

November 2016: the purchase

Five years later the same office was moving a different order of money. The sequence occupies about seventeen hours.

At 3:26 p.m. on Tuesday 22 November 2016, Heather Gray of Elysium Management LLC, 445 Park Avenue, Suite 1401, New York, wrote to Epstein: “Here are image and descriptions of the works”. Beneath it, a reproduced image and six lines: “Georges Braque / Le Guéridon / signed ‘Braque’ (on the reverse) / oil on canvas / 16 x 13 in. / Painted in 1911.” A further description on a later sheet gives an Egon Schiele, “signed and dated ‘EGON SCHIELE 1913’ (lower left)”, oil on canvas, “35 x 35 3/8 in.” and “Painted in 1913”.1516

Epstein forwarded it seven minutes later to Heather Gray and Darren Indyke with four words: “pleaes send all documents to darren”.15

At 4:00 p.m. Gray sent Indyke the paperwork, and the message is the clearest statement in the file of how the transaction was built:

Attached for your review are draft Bills of Sale for the Giacometti, the Schiele and the Braque. I need to know the name and address of the buyer for each document, and also where each work will be shipped.

Also attached are the wire transfer instructions, which I will attach to the respective Bills of Sale once they are ready to be finalized. Both payments are going to the same account, but the reference will be different for each (AP Narrows for the Giacometti payment, LDB 2011 LLC for the Schiele and Braque payments).

As I told Jeffrey and as the Bills of Sale indicate, his payments must be in the CDEC bank account by noon tomorrow in order for these deals to be completed, so he will need to send wire transfers first thing in the morning. Please have someone send me the fed wire reference numbers once the payments have been made.5

Three things are worth reading slowly there. The buyer was not yet decided when the bills of sale were drawn: Gray asks for “the name and address of the buyer for each document”. The payments were split not by recipient, which was one account, but by reference line, and the two reference lines are entity names. And the whole thing was on a deadline of noon the following day, imposed by the seller’s structure rather than by the buyer.

At 5:11 the next morning Epstein wrote to Richard Kahn and Indyke, subject “haze”: “ok to wire the 30 million. to darren directions”.4

At 8:06 a.m. Indyke forwarded Gray’s message to Kahn with the allocation: “See attachments to Heather’s email below. Haze is just purchasing Giacometti for $25MM and Braque FOR $5MM. Two separate wires - $25MM with reference to AP Narrows for Giacometti and $5MM with reference to LDB 2011 LLC for the Braque.”5

A memorandum on The Haze Trust’s own letterhead, dated 23 November 2016 and addressed to Indyke, instructs the wire of “Twenty Five Million Dollars (25,000,000)” to a clearing account of Chicago Deferred Exchange Company, LLC at Bank of America in Chicago, for further credit to a trust account held in the name of “AP Narrows Holding LP/BMO Trustee”, with telephone confirmation to a named officer of the exchange company.6

What the bill of sale says, and what the email says

The draft bill of sale itself, dated 23 November 2016, is the document that names the object:

Artist: Alberto Giacometti Title: Figure moyenne II Medium: bronze with golden brown patina Size: 51 in. high Date: 1947 Signed: signed and dated ‘A. Giacometti 1947’ (on the top of the base); inscribed with foundry mark ‘Alexis Rudier Fondeur Paris’ (on the back of the base)

Its seller is “CDECRE Artwork EAT LLC, c/o Chicago Deferred Exchange Company”. Its buyer line reads “[JEE ENTITY]” above two lines reading “[ADDRESS]”. Its purchase price is “$27,000,000”, with a second line reading “$0 NY sales tax (out of state delivery to Buyer)” and the figure repeated. Payment was due “No later than 12:00 pm on November 23, 2016”, and the document provides in bold that if the money did not arrive by then “the sale will be cancelled, title to the Work will not pass to Buyer, this Bill of Sale shall be automatically terminated”.1

Two documents prepared within hours of each other give two prices for the same bronze. The bill of sale says $27,000,000. Indyke’s email to Kahn says $25MM, and the trust’s wire memorandum instructs $25,000,000. This page prints both and resolves neither, because no sheet read for it does. The difference is $2,000,000, and the obvious reconciliations, that the bill of sale was a draft superseded before execution or that the balance travelled by another route, are each consistent with the record and neither is documented in it.

The seller’s own name carries the letters “EAT”, and the company it sits care of is named “Chicago Deferred Exchange Company”. No sheet read for this page expands either, and this page does not characterise the tax treatment. What the documents do show is the route: the money went to a deferred-exchange company’s clearing account, for further credit to a trust account held in a third party’s name, against a bill of sale from a company whose own address is care of that exchange company. The Senate Finance Committee later put questions to Leon Black about like-kind exchanges on works over $1 million and about art sales over $1 million, in a letter that also records his refusal to answer the Committee’s earlier questions about his private art collection.17

The released copy of the bill of sale is a draft with the buyer left as a bracketed placeholder. No executed version of it appears among the sheets read for this page.

May 2017: the consignment

On 11 May 2017, five and a half months after the purchase, Sotheby’s wrote from 34-35 New Bond Street, London, to The Haze Trust at its St Thomas address in the U.S. Virgin Islands:

Thank you for instructing Sotheby’s in London (“Sotheby’s”, “we”, “our”) to offer for sale at auction on your behalf the following work: Alberto Giacometti, Grande figure, bronze, height 130.3cm, cast by Rudier in 19482

The letter agreement runs to four sheets and three schedules of standard conditions, and its commercial terms are unusual enough to be worth setting out.

  • Estimate. “Sotheby’s current pre-sale estimates for the Property are £15,000,000-£25,000,000.” The reserve was left to be agreed in writing before the sale and could not exceed the low estimate.
  • Commission. “Sotheby’s agrees not to charge you a seller’s commission on the sale of the Property.” Beyond that, the seller was to receive part of what the buyer paid: “an amount of the buyer’s premium received by Sotheby’s in cleared funds equal to 8% of the hammer price achieved for the Property”. Nor would anything be charged if the bronze failed to sell: “Sotheby’s will not charge any commission on unsold Property.”
  • Expenses. Sotheby’s agreed to bear all of them, itemised as liability for loss or damage, catalogue illustration, production and mailing, packing and shipping both to its premises and to and from travelling exhibitions, and agreed advertising.
  • Customs. “You acknowledge that the Property has been imported from outside the European Union for sale in London and that Sotheby’s will be selling the Property under its Temporary Admission arrangement.”
  • Settlement. Payment was due thirty-five days after the last session of the auction, in sterling unless the seller asked in writing for another currency, in which case Sotheby’s would convert at a rate quoted by a London commercial bank on the day it paid.2

A house that charges no seller’s commission, hands back 8 per cent of the hammer price, pays the shipping and the insurance and takes nothing if the lot fails is competing hard for a consignment. The agreement also records, in its own terms, that the bronze was outside the European Union before the sale and entered Britain temporarily for it.

The last sheet is an acknowledgement block: a line for a signature, a line for a name, the words “Duly authorised for and on behalf of The Haze Trust”, and a line for a date. In the copy in the release all four are empty, and the space above “Yours sincerely / Sotheby’s” carries no signature either. The instrument the file holds was executed by nobody.2

The two sales, and the money

Christie’s, 15 May 2017: the Braque

Four days after the Sotheby’s letter was written, a Braque sold in New York. Christie’s settlement statement, dated 19 June 2017 and addressed to The Haze Trust at the same St Thomas address, names the sale as the “Impressionist and Modern Art Evening Sale” of 15 May 2017 and sets out one line of account detail. The lot column reads “5 A”; the result and description column reads “Sold” above “Georges Braque (1882-1963) Le Guéridon signed ‘Braque’ (on the reverse) oil on canvas”; and against it the statement prints “Hammer 8,800,000.00”, “Upside -1,075,000.00” and “Total 7,725,000.00”, with “Proceeds Currently Due US$ 7,725,000.00”, “Future Proceeds US$ 0.00” and “Pending Proceeds US$ 0.00”. The payee is “The Haze Trust”, by wire transfer to Deutsche Bank, New York.3

The description Christie’s printed matches, term for term, the description Elysium Management had emailed Epstein six months earlier: same artist, same title, same note that the signature is on the reverse, same medium. The statement gives no dimensions and no date of execution, so nothing on it independently confirms that this is the canvas measuring 16 by 13 inches and painted in 1911 that Indyke priced at $5MM. What the two documents establish on their own terms is that a Braque called Le Guéridon, signed on the reverse, was described to Epstein in November 2016 and that a Braque answering the same description was sold at Christie’s the following May.1553

The deduction is the part the statement does not explain. “Upside” takes $1,075,000 out of an $8,800,000 hammer price, a little over 12 per cent, and the statement never defines it. The third sheet of the same document is a page of general information with a headed “Glossary of Terms”, and that glossary defines Freight, Future Proceeds, Offset, Tax Forfaitaire/Plus Value and Tiered Commission. It does not define Upside. The only term on the statement that moved money other than the hammer price is the only term the document declines to explain.18

Sotheby’s, 22 June 2017: the Giacometti

Sotheby’s payment detail, dated 25 September 2017 and addressed to “The Haze Trust / Mr Darren Indyke” in St Thomas, gives sale “L17006”, lot “0057”, document date “22-Jun-2017”, and the description “Alberto Giacometti, Grande figure, bronze, cast by Alexis Rudier in 1948, height: 130.3cm.” The net amount is “£8,532,000.00-”, and the covering advice states “Payment of £8,532,000.00” and “We are pleased to confirm the transfer of funds to your account and have enclosed a breakdown of your payment.” The remittance number is 2000533821.7

Three months had passed since the sale, against the thirty-five days the consignment agreement specified. The correspondence shows the chase. At 9:18 a.m. on 25 September 2017 Richard Kahn of HBRK Associates wrote to Cecilia Weaver at Sotheby’s: “please advise if wire was sent and provide amount and details / thank you”. At 12:00:45 p.m. she replied: “Please find the remittance advice confirming payment released today in the amount of $8,532,000.” Her sentence carries a dollar sign; the advice she attached, and the breakdown behind it, are in sterling.87

At 12:44 p.m. the money landed, logged in the chain as “INCOMING MONEY TRANSFER” of “$11,536,544.40”. At 4:57 p.m. Kahn forwarded the whole thread to Epstein with two lines of his own. The first: “wire was received today”. The second, beneath the bank line:

haze trust received wire today $11,536,544 on 50% of giacometti at exchange rate of 1.35215 x 8,532,000 pounds8

That sentence is the only place in the documents read for this page where a share is stated. It is Kahn telling Epstein, on the day, that the sum represented half of the Giacometti. The consignment agreement names The Haze Trust alone as the seller and says nothing about a co-owner. Nothing read for this page identifies who held the other half.

The bronze bought and the bronze sold are not the same description

The Giacometti that the November 2016 bill of sale conveys is Figure moyenne II, bronze with golden brown patina, 51 inches high, executed in 1947, signed and dated 1947 on the top of the base. The Giacometti that Sotheby’s sold in June 2017 is Grande figure, bronze, 130.3 centimetres, cast by Alexis Rudier in 1948. The titles differ, the years differ, and 51 inches is 129.5 centimetres against 130.3.

No sheet read for this page states that these are the same object, and none states that they are different. That is the honest position, and it matters for anyone reading the money: if they are the same bronze, then a work bought in November 2016 at $25,000,000 or $27,000,000 was consigned five and a half months later against an estimate of £15,000,000 to £25,000,000 and returned half-proceeds of £8,532,000. If they are not, then the released files document the purchase of one Giacometti and the sale of another, and the first one’s subsequent history is not in the sheets read here.

The Schiele raises the same kind of question in smaller form. A draft bill of sale was prepared for it and a payment reference assigned to it, “LDB 2011 LLC for the Schiele and Braque payments”. But Indyke’s allocation to Kahn the next morning names only two works and two sums, the Giacometti at $25MM and the Braque at $5MM, and Epstein authorised “the 30 million”, which is those two. No document read for this page records what became of the Schiele.5416

The bank table

Exhibit D of a set of transaction tables compiled from Deutsche Bank’s records, headed “Transactions Involving The Haze Trust Accounts”, is the independent check on all of it. Its columns are Date, Payer, Recipient, Amount and Bates #, and three of its rows name an auction house as payer:

DatePayerRecipientAmount
6/19/2017Christie’s Inc.The Haze Trust Checking$7,725,000
9/25/2017Sotheby’sThe Haze Trust Checking$11,536,544
10/24/2017Sotheby’sThe Haze Trust Checking$11,249,417

Together, $30,510,961. The first two reconcile exactly with the instruments: the Christie’s figure is the proceeds line of the settlement statement of the same date, and the Sotheby’s figure of 25 September is the dollar sum Kahn reported to Epstein that afternoon, which the exhibit carries without the forty cents the bank line shows.938

The exhibit’s own footnote explains the accounts behind the table: “The below chart reflects the flow of money through two deposit accounts and one brokerage account belonging to ‘The Haze Trust.’ The Haze Trust Checking account was opened with Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas. The Haze Trust DBAGNY account was opened with Deutsche Bank’s New York branch office. The latter account offers higher interest rates than the former. We have yet to determine how the Haze Trust Brokerage account was initially capitalized.”9

Both auction payments were moved on within two days. The exhibit records $15,000,000 going from the checking account to the higher-interest account on 26 September 2017, the day after the first Sotheby’s credit, and $13,000,000 on 26 October, two days after the second. The trust’s Deutsche Bank statement for October 1 to October 31, 2017 corroborates the second pair from the bank’s side: deposits and other credits of $11,249,417.00, other debits of $13,000,000.00, a beginning balance of $4,254,250.84 and an ending balance of $2,503,667.84.910

The third payment

The $11,249,417 that Sotheby’s paid on 24 October 2017 is the one figure in this record with no object attached to it. The exhibit names the payer and the amount. The bank statement confirms the credit and the date. No consignment agreement, settlement statement, payment advice or email read for this page says what was sold to produce it. The two payments that are documented each took a different route into the file, one through a settlement statement retained by the office and one through a covering email, which is a reminder that the record here is made of what somebody happened to keep rather than of what a producer compiled.910

What the sequence shows

Read end to end, the dated events say something the individual documents do not.

A work was acquired on 23 November 2016 through a deferred-exchange company on a same-day deadline, paid for out of The Haze Trust, with the payment referenced to a third party’s entity name. A second work from the same batch went to Christie’s and sold within six months at a hammer price well above the figure Indyke had attached to it. A bronze answering a closely similar description went to Sotheby’s in London under terms a seller is rarely offered, was sold in June 2017, and produced a payment that Kahn, writing to Epstein, described as half. Within forty-eight hours of each auction-house credit arriving, the money left the operating account for a higher-interest one.

Against that, four gaps are documented rather than inferred: the bill of sale in the file is unexecuted and names no buyer; the consignment agreement in the file is unsigned by either party; the purchase price of the Giacometti is given as two different numbers by two documents written hours apart; and one of the three auction credits, the one credit with no object attached, has no sale and no lot named for it anywhere in the sheets read for this page.

What this page does not cover

The purchases and sales above are only part of the art record in the released files. Not covered here, and each worth its own page: Epstein’s advisory role in Leon Black’s collection and the valuations attached to it; the art inventories and appraisals held for other people’s collections; the auction-house descriptions and lot sheets that appear in the files with no transaction attached to them; the disposal of chattels after 2019; and the art-backed lending and holding structures. Where an entity or a person is already covered on this site, this page links rather than restates.

Footnotes

  1. Bill of sale dated November 23, 2016, seller CDECRE Artwork EAT LLC c/o Chicago Deferred Exchange Company, buyer “[JEE ENTITY]”. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00592208 p.8, printed stamp EFTA00592215. Read at the page image. The image confirms the title in italic, the price of “$27,000,000” printed twice with the sales-tax line between, the noon deadline, and the bold termination provision. A catalogue-style description of the same bronze appears on the preceding sheet, p.5, printed stamp EFTA00592212, read from the released text only. No executed counterpart of this bill of sale appears among the sheets read for this page. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  2. Letter agreement of 11 May 2017 from Sotheby’s, 34-35 New Bond Street, London, to The Haze Trust, incorporating Sotheby’s Conditions of Business for Sellers as Schedule I. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00802938 pp.1-4, printed stamps EFTA00802938 to EFTA00802941. The instruction to sell and clauses 1 to 3 are at p.1; the Temporary Admission acknowledgement and clauses 4 to 7 at p.2; clauses 8 to 11 at p.3; the acknowledgement block at p.4. Sheet 4 read at the page image, which confirms that the signature, name and date lines, and the space above “Yours sincerely / Sotheby’s”, are all blank. Sheets 1 to 3 read from the released text. The three schedules of standard conditions at pp.5-8, printed stamps EFTA00802942 to EFTA00802945, were not read for this page. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5

  3. Christie’s settlement statement, statement date 19 June 2017, to The Haze Trust. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00788389 pp.1-2, printed stamps EFTA00788389 and EFTA00788390. Both read at the page image. The account summary, payee and wire details are at p.1; the account detail with lot 5A, the hammer price, the “Upside” deduction and the proceeds totals at p.2. Account, routing and reference numbers in this instrument are not reproduced on this page. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5

  4. Email of 5:11 a.m. on 23 November 2016 from Jeffrey Epstein to Richard Kahn and Darren Indyke, subject “haze”. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00592208 p.7, printed stamp EFTA00592214. Read from the released text; not read at the page image. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  5. Email of 8:06 a.m. on Wednesday 23 November 2016 from Darren Indyke to Richard Kahn, subject “Fwd: images”, carrying Heather Gray’s message of 4:00:53 p.m. on 22 November beneath it. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00592208 p.3, printed stamp EFTA00592210. Read at the page image. Both quotations are from this sheet; the line breaks in Indyke’s allocation are the sheet’s own. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6

  6. Memorandum on The Haze Trust letterhead to Darren K. Indyke, value date 23 November 2016, with the Chicago Deferred Exchange Company wire transfer instruction sheet beneath it. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00592208 pp.1-2, printed stamps EFTA00592208 and EFTA00592209. Read from the released text; not read at the page image. The quoted instruction to wire “Twenty Five Million Dollars (25,000,000)”, the name “AP Narrows Holding LP/BMO Trustee” and the exchange company’s Chicago address are on these sheets. Account, routing and reference numbers in this instrument are not reproduced on this page. ↩ ↩2

  7. Sotheby’s payment advice and payment detail, dated 25 September 2017, to “The Haze Trust / Mr Darren Indyke”. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00593198 pp.1-2, printed stamps EFTA00593198 and EFTA00593199. The covering advice and the figure “Payment of £8,532,000.00” are at p.1, read from the released text. The payment detail naming sale L17006, lot 0057, document date 22-Jun-2017 and the description of the bronze is at p.2, read at the page image. Account numbers in this instrument are not reproduced on this page. The remittance number is printed above, because it identifies a payment rather than an account. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  8. Email of 4:57 p.m. on Monday 25 September 2017 from Richard Kahn, HBRK Associates Inc., to Jeffrey Epstein, subject “Fwd: Giacometti terms”, attaching “The_Haze_Trust_remittance_25.09.17.pdf”, carrying beneath it Cecilia Weaver of Sotheby’s at 12:00:45 p.m. and Kahn’s own request at 9:18 a.m. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00640749 p.1, printed stamp EFTA00640749. Read at the page image, which resolves the bank line as “09/25/2017 12:44 PM (ET) INCOMING MONEY TRANSFER $11,536,544.40” and confirms Kahn’s sentence and its spelling. The remaining two sheets of this document were not read for this page. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  9. “Exhibit D: Transactions Involving The Haze Trust Accounts”, one sheet of a set of transaction tables compiled from Deutsche Bank records and produced in the Epstein files. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00027019 p.7, printed stamp EFTA00027025. Read at the page image, which confirms the column headings Date, Payer, Recipient, Amount and Bates #, the three auction-house rows and the footnote quoted here. The other eight sheets of this document, printed stamps EFTA00027019 to EFTA00027024 and printed stamps EFTA00027026 to EFTA00027027, carry Exhibits A, B, C and E and were read from the released text only. Account and reference identifiers in this exhibit are not reproduced on this page. Further copies of the same sheet appear at https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00080250, https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00080260, https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00104945 and https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00811508, which were not read for this page. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6

  10. Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas account statement for The Haze Trust, October 1, 2017 to October 31, 2017. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01287132 pp.1-2, printed stamps EFTA01287132 and EFTA01287133. Read from the released text; not read at the page image. The summary of account balances and the credit of $11,249,417.00 are at p.1; the other-debits detail of $13,000,000.00, dated 10.26, is at p.2. Account and reference numbers in this instrument are not reproduced on this page. The third sheet was not read for this page. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  11. The message of Thursday 21 July 2011 at 3:57 p.m. from Lily D. Snyder, Sotheby’s Private Client Group, within the same chain. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02323094 p.2, printed stamp EFTA02323095. Read at the page image. The sheet’s spelling “tranfering” and “is the system” are its own and are not corrected inside the quotation marks. ↩ ↩2

  12. Email chain of 19 to 21 July 2011 between Epstein’s office and Sotheby’s, subject “Photos from Paris Chairs”, as carried in the copy at https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02323094. The specialist’s note runs across two sheets and is quoted here in two parts, not joined: the description of the chairs is at p.3, printed stamp EFTA02323096, and the estimate and the auction calendar at p.4, printed stamp EFTA02323097, which also carries the message of Tuesday 19 July 2011 at 12:41 p.m. to Alejandra Rossetti; the six attachment names are listed on the following sheet, p.5, printed stamp EFTA02323098. The reply of 2:50 p.m. on 21 July, with the year printed as “=010”, is at p.3. Read at the page image at 96 dots per inch as well as in the released text. The image establishes that the equals signs are printed on the paper and are not a reading error: the released document is a printout of an email whose characters have been partly substituted throughout, and the quotations here reproduce the sheet exactly, including those substitutions. A second copy of the same chain is at https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02323077 pp.1-5, printed stamps EFTA02323077 to EFTA02323081. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  13. Email chain of 17 to 20 June 2011 between two members of Epstein’s staff, subject line blank on the sheet. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02323043 p.1, printed stamp EFTA02323043, for the request of Friday 17 June 2011 at 2:21 p.m. and the reply of Monday 20 June 2011 at 1:01 p.m. quoted here; the exchange continues at p.2, printed stamp EFTA02323044. Read from the released text. This page does not name the correspondents. ↩ ↩2

  14. The message of Thursday 21 July 2011 at 4:16 p.m. from Lily D. Snyder, within the same chain. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02323094 p.1, printed stamp EFTA02323094. Read at the page image. Account and reference numbers in this instrument are not reproduced on this page, and this page does not name the staff correspondents. ↩

  15. Email of 3:26 p.m. on Tuesday 22 November 2016 from Heather Gray, Elysium Management LLC, to Jeffrey Epstein, subject “images”, with Epstein’s forward of 3:33 p.m. to Heather Gray and Darren Indyke above it. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00592208 p.4, printed stamp EFTA00592211. Read at the page image. The six-line description of the Braque and the firm’s address block are on that sheet. The sheet also reproduces an image of the work, which this page does not describe. Epstein’s spelling “pleaes” is his own. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  16. The continuation of the same message. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00592208 p.6, printed stamp EFTA00592213, for the description of the Schiele and the two attachment names “Giacometti Bill of Sale - CDECRE to buyer.doc” and “Schiele Bill of Sale - CDECRE to Buyer.doc”. Read from the released text; not read at the page image. ↩ ↩2

  17. Letter of the Senate Finance Committee to Leon Black, demand 15, on the art collection. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02731023 p.16, with the Committee’s own account of his refusals at p.10 of the same letter. This page did not read those sheets. The two subjects described here are taken from this site’s page on that letter, which cites them to those sheets, and nothing is quoted from them here. ↩

  18. The third sheet of the same settlement statement, headed “SETTLEMENT STATEMENT • General Information”. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00788389 p.3, printed stamp EFTA00788391. Read from the released text; not read at the page image. The glossary on that sheet defines Freight, Future Proceeds, Offset, Tax Forfaitaire/Plus Value and Tiered Commission, and no other term. ↩

Backlinks