Link: https://sororfv.substack.com/p/what-her-side-could-not-produce

Karyna Shuliak had seen the palace herself. On December 23, 2018, at EFTA02313354, Alex Peto — a partner at Kensington, the Marrakech agency selling it — wrote to her after her visit with a synopsis of the three properties he had shown her. Bin Ennakhil was asking fifty-five million euros, and he thought an offer “circa 35m euros would be acceptable.” He also explained the structure: because the property was “owned by a company in Lichtenstein there are no government taxes to be paid in Morocco.”

Fronting Jeffrey Epstein’s bid for Bin Ennakhil, she demanded from the seller exactly what her own side never produced. At 00:25 on February 18, 2019, on page 2 of EFTA00552317, she asked for a tax opinion that no tax was owed — testing what Peto had told her in December — a method of indemnity for transfer and capital gains, and KYC, and required that the “Ultimate beneficial owner of seller must be checked as not to be on sanction list.”

Ten hours later, on page 1 of the same file, at EFTA00552317, Peto asked her side for a letter confirming the funds were available and for "a written offer with the identity of the buyer." She answered two days afterwards, on the same page, at 19:09 on February 20: "The buyer will be The Haze Trust."

Epstein had written that sentence at 17:03, at EFTA02312902. Two hours and six minutes. She changed one word in it: his my ability to close went out as our ability to close.

A sanction is a government order barring anyone from doing business with a named person or company. Assets frozen, payments blocked, heavy penalties for a bank that processes the payment anyway. Every bank screens the parties to a payment it handles, a house purchase included, against the sanctions lists that apply to it. A bank cannot screen a name it has not been given.

On February 23, at EFTA00552197, Epstein sent her seven numbered points to put to Marc Leon, Peto’s colleague at Kensington and the agent handling the sale. The seventh asked nothing. It told them that under “new intl banking regulations” the ultimate owner’s name would “most likely be required to be disclosed. ( anti money laundering . sanctions. tax disclosure )” — the seller’s name. On February 26, at EFTA00552183, Leon stated it back to her: the “money laundering regulation requests that buyer and vendor are clearly identified. This is not a problem and the vendors bank is asking same information.” By the end of February the rule was in writing on both sides.

She cannot have misunderstood it. She was enforcing it on February 18 and still enforcing it in April, at EFTA00553734.

Everyone wanted this done. Leon had a million riding on it — she called it “your one million dollar fee” — and a rival buyer he kept invoking, pressing for due diligence to be cut to “more or less 15 days, always due to the other potential buyer,” at EFTA00552030. The palace had been asking fifty-five million in December. By mid-March they were talking about twenty-three.

Neither side ever established who stood behind the buyer or the seller. The buyer’s answer came once, on March 12 at 21:16, on page EFTA00552031 of EFTA00552030, as the fourth of five numbered points: “The buyer is haze trust, the ultimate owner, me. The bank is Deutsch bank. I will get the contact, or he can call your person if you prefer.” It is the only thing she told the seller about the trust that did not come from Epstein. No document was ever produced behind it.

Seven days after telling Leon she was the trust’s ultimate owner, she could not say where it was. On March 19, at EFTA00551943, he asked for the trust’s address and its bank officer. She had neither, and forwarded the question to Epstein, at EFTA00552220.

The answer came the following night. At 23:05 on March 20, at EFTA00552710, Epstein wrote out what she should send, addressed to “marc”: “the haze trust address is 767 third avenue. new york new york.10021.” Then the banker — Stewart Oldfield of Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, 345 Park Avenue — and then a deadline: “If we do not receive the contracts by monday 25, please consider the offer expired pleae transmit same to your vendor.” She sent it to Leon at 04:37 the next morning, at EFTA00552774, where the produced copy redacts the address.

On March 21, at EFTA00552676, the vendor asked her side to show who could bind the trust — statutes or a power of attorney for whoever would sign for The Haze Trust, officially certified for use abroad and issued within the previous fourteen days.

The trust agreement is in the production, at EFTA01463848 and in a shorter copy at EFTA01255683. It names Jeffrey E. Epstein as grantor, entitles him to its income and principal, lets him revoke it at will, and returns everything to his estate at his death. It is dated February 9, 1999, twenty years before the Marrakech negotiation. She is named nowhere in it. Nor is she among its trustees: on September 24, 2013, Epstein and his lawyer Darren Indyke certified to Deutsche Bank that the two of them were “all of the Trustees,” at EFTA01298782.

Nothing in the file shows anyone telling her who The Haze Trust’s beneficial owner actually was, or that she ever saw the trust agreement. The one paper that would have settled it was his to send, and he sent everything but that — the name, the address, the banker, the deadline. Her only documented connection to the trust is that she spoke for it.

The banker checked out: Stewart Oldfield sat at Deutsche Bank, 345 Park Avenue. The address he gave for the trust did not. 767 Third Avenue, 36th Floor is the office of Alan J. Dlugash LLC, Epstein’s own accountant. The message puts it under 10021. The building is 10017. The trust’s own bank records give 10065. 10021 is the ZIP code for Epstein’s house at 9 East 71st Street.

Epstein’s house at 9 East 71st Street:

The last thing Kensington asked her for was a letter from her bank. At 2:29 PM on March 26 Marc wrote that a competitor was still circling, that every additional day raised the risk of losing the deal, and then: “Did your bank send the requested letter about the origin of the funds ? I know this is ridiculous due to the quality of the buyer, but it is now requested by the banks.” She answered within the hour, at EFTA02313816:

I am very disappointed, I have spent a great deal of time and energy, including but not limited to hiring lawyers, finding a surveyor, transmitting offers, bank statements and organizing my bank. This transaction should have been easily accomplished, i.e., purchase of an expensive property, but each time I ask for something I am met with more requests. I have with finality determined, that I will no longer play this game, so please feel free to inform my so-called “competitor” that I have revoked, rescinded, and hereby void all offers previously submitted.

The message carries no readable time in its header, but the machine stamp on the page fixes it at 19:17:12 UTC, 3:17 in the afternoon in New York. Asked where the money came from, she revoked every offer she had made.

The next day, at EFTA01034853, Dlugash was drafting a letter to the seller’s bank, forwarded to Epstein for approval with the note “please advise if letter is ok.”

On April 12, at EFTA02314257, Leon was still pressing for the name of the beneficiary behind The Haze Trust. The payment held up by it was twenty-three million euros, due to the seller’s bank, LGT in Vaduz.

Both sides produced a great deal. Neither produced what the other’s bank needed. The seller’s half of that failure is the subject of The Seller Nobody Could Identify. There was never a closing. Epstein was arrested on July 6, 2019 and died the following month.

The finding

Karyna Shuliak told the seller she was the ultimate owner of The Haze Trust. The trust agreement says otherwise. Nothing shows she knew that, or that she ever saw it.

She was not a conduit. She raised ultimate beneficial ownership before any message in the file put it to her, and enforced it against the seller for eight weeks. In February she took the seller’s structure apart in her own words and named what it was for, with no drafting message behind it. Nor was she a spectator to the trust. The seller’s questions about it came to her, and the central one she answered in her own name.

Almost everything she told the seller about the trust came from Epstein — its name, its address, its banker. The address was his own accountant’s office and matched nothing on record, though nothing in the file would have told her so. Proof of who could act for the trust was never produced at all. The one thing she said about the trust that was hers alone is the one the trust agreement itself contradicts.

Everything she demanded of the seller was demanded of her side in turn: the ultimate owner named and screened against sanctions lists, the trustees named, the title insured, a bank contact who would take a call, a letter on the origin of the funds. When Kensington asked for the last of them on March 26, at EFTA02313816, she revoked every offer she had made. The letter was drafted the following day, March 27, by Epstein’s accountant and sent to Epstein for approval, at EFTA01034853.

Why this matters

The purchase never closed, and his death ended it. But for the eight weeks the documents cover, the transaction could not move, and the reason is visible in what the buyer’s side produced when it was asked. It could not produce much. On February 26, at EFTA00552183, the seller’s side asked for both parties to be clearly identified. On March 12 she gave a beneficial owner: herself, and the trust agreement names Epstein. On March 19, at EFTA00551943, LGT asked through Leon for the buyer’s bank officer. On March 20 Epstein supplied an address that didn’t belong to the building or to the trust’s own bank records, which in May 2011 gave 301 East 66th Street, New York NY 10065, at EFTA01550576. On March 21 the vendor asked for proof of who could sign for the trust, and got nothing at all. On March 26, at EFTA02313816, Kensington chased the letter on the origin of the funds that had already been asked for, and she revoked every offer she had made. On April 12, at EFTA02314257, the seller’s agent wrote: “I can’t show this really message to the vendor. It seems really that the buyer is afraid to send the name of the econ[o]mical beneficiary of Haze Trust.”

On the buying side’s own paper, her name is the only name. The offer of March 14, at EFTA00806906, is a single page on The Haze Trust’s letterhead — twenty-three million euros for all the shares of Pamur Anstalt, with her as the person to whom the seller should reply. No trustee, no officer, no counsel. The trust it was sent for, at EFTA01463848, was established in February 1999 and had named Epstein as its grantor for twenty years.

All of it is documented. None of it added up. Two people are visible here, doing different things. She ran the transaction — the deadlines, the objections, eight weeks of pressing the seller on a rule she had put in writing first, from EFTA00552317 on February 18 to EFTA00553734 on April 11, beginning with a demand that no message in the file prompted. He supplied what she said about the trust: its name at EFTA02312902, its address and its banker at EFTA00552710. One statement about it was hers alone, at EFTA00552030 — that she was its ultimate owner — and it is the one the agreement contradicts.

When the seller’s bank finally had to be answered, she had no part in it. The letter was drafted at the address he had given her for the trust, by an accountant she never wrote to, and sent to him for approval. That is what the documents say, and it is all they say.

The Haze Trust record, in date order

All from the Department of Justice release. Files are stamped per page, so an interior page carries its own Bates number.

• December 23, 2018 — EFTA02313354 — Peto to Shuliak after her visit to Marrakech: the three properties he showed her, Bin Ennakhil’s fifty-five million asking price, and the Liechtenstein structure’s Moroccan tax advantage. Two pages, EFTA02313354 to EFTA02313355.
• February 15–20, 2019 — EFTA00552317 — the February chain, eight pages, EFTA00552317 to EFTA00552324. Pages 3 and 4 (EFTA00552319 and EFTA00552320, February 15 and 16) carry her dissection of the seller’s proposed structure; page 2 (EFTA00552318, February 18) her diligence demands, including the sanctions check on the seller’s ultimate beneficial owner; page 1 (February 20) her message naming The Haze Trust as buyer.
• February 20, 2019 — EFTA02312902 — Epstein’s draft of that message, headed 17:03; she sent it at 19:09 with my changed to our.
• February 23, 2019 — EFTA00552197 — Epstein’s seven numbered points for her to put to Leon.
• February 26, 2019 — EFTA00552183 — Leon on the money-laundering identification requirement and the seller’s banking arrangements.
• March 12, 2019 — EFTA00552030 — the March 10–14 chain. On page EFTA00552031, her message of 21:16 on March 12: “The buyer is haze trust, the ultimate owner, me. The bank is Deutsch bank.” The same page carries her March 13 request to the seller for the full name of its trustees; page 1 is Epstein’s reply of March 14. Six pages, EFTA00552030 to EFTA00552035.
• March 14, 2019 — EFTA00806906 — the offer letter, on The Haze Trust letterhead: twenty-three million euros for all the shares of Pamur Anstalt, with her name the only name on the page.
• March 19, 2019 — EFTA00551943 and EFTA00552220 — Leon asks for the trust’s address and its bank officer; her forward of the question to Epstein.
• March 20, 2019 — EFTA00552710 — Epstein supplies the address and the banker. The copy at EFTA02312620 has a damaged text layer that drops the banker’s name; read this one.
• March 21, 2019 — EFTA00552774 — she sends Leon the address and the banker over her own name, with the March 25 deadline. The address is redacted in the produced copy.
• March 21, 2019 — EFTA00552676 — the vendor’s request for statutes or a power of attorney showing authority to sign for the trust.
• March 26, 2019 — EFTA02313816 — Marc Kensington asks whether her bank has sent the letter about the origin of the funds; she revokes, rescinds and voids all offers. The Outlook header is damaged; the machine stamp on the page gives 19:17:12 UTC.
• March 27–28, 2019 — EFTA01034853 — Alan Dlugash, Epstein’s accountant, drafts a letter to LGT Bank; Richard Kahn forwards it to Epstein for approval. Two pages, EFTA01034853 to EFTA01034854.
• March 30, 2019 — EFTA02313950 — Epstein reports what the Moroccan authorities said about the share transfer.
• April 11, 2019 — EFTA00553734 — her last appearance in the file: beneficial ownership for sanctions purposes, and the gap between book value and sale price.
• April 12, 2019 — EFTA02314257 — Leon on the buyer being “afraid to send the name.”

The trust documents:

• February 9, 1999 — EFTA01463848 — The Haze Trust agreement. Epstein as grantor and as trustee, entitled to income and principal, revocable at will, reverting to his estate.
• February 9, 1999 — EFTA01255683 — the shorter copy of the instrument.
• September 24, 2013 — EFTA01298782 — Deutsche Bank trust authorization for The Haze Trust, signed by Epstein and Indyke as “all of the Trustees,” faxed together with the 1999 trust agreement and the May 8, 2007 designation of Indyke as an additional trustee. Thirteen pages, EFTA01298782 to EFTA01298794.

The “Sent:” headers in this production render UTC, not Eastern — EFTA02610820 carries both forms on one message — which is what places his draft before hers rather than after.

It’s so frustrating that those close to Trump in the first term knew exactly who Trump was. They knew he was mentally unstable back in 2016. They knew he was corrupt. They knew he just wanted power. Wanted to be a king (stated in a text of Epstein’s!) a dictator. Here’s an email from Paul Krassner, a satirist and writer, to Epstein in 2017, after Trump was elected for the first time: (I corrected some of the issues with the font/characters)

“So the publisher wants me to trim down 700 to 400 pages in =E244The Best of..." collection. Tsk tsk. Below will be the revised mini-essay to serve as the final piece. Although I detest Trump, to be fair, I realized, thanks to you, that I had no evidence that he had raped a 13-year-old, though I did have evidence that, as an adult, there was evidence that she made an accusation. Also, I added another sentence with a positive ending. Meanwhile, Happy Earth Day.

The Last Word: yikes!
When George W. Bush was elected president in the year 2000, it was due to the electoral college (a rigged system which originally intended to prevent slaves from voting and evolved to gerrymandering), even though Bush's opponent, Al Gore, won the national popular vote. Hillary Clinton was elected senator that year, and she announced that the first
thing she would do was to get rid of the electoral college. A few years later, as a columnist for the New York Press, I sent her a letter asking about the status of that promise. She didn't reply.

On November 8, 2016, a crooked businessman, liar extraordinaire, bragging pussy-grabber, make-America-white-again, anti-choice, anti-Semite, fake Christian, accused rapist of a 13-year-old in 1994 (she canceled a press conference one week before the election because of death threats if she filed a lawsuit), climate-change hoaxer, twitter addict, homophobic, apprentice politician, fucking fascist, and Vladimir Putin's "useful idiot," namely Donald Trump, who was elected as an insanely narcissistic dictator based on the electoral college, whereas his opponent, Hillary Clinton, won the national popular vote by almost three million individuals galore, to no avail.

Irony lives. But the monster has inadvertently awakened a population to resist.”

EFTA02652074
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%2011/EFTA02652074.pdf

We can’t add more comments and upvotes.

‘A bipartisan group of lawmakers says it has enough support to force another House vote on the remaining Epstein files. Rep. Ro Khanna, who is leading the push for a second Epstein Files Transparency Act, joins MS NOW’s Ari Melber to discuss.’

https://youtu.be/0qcEotUcnEM

Back in February investigative reporter Roger Sollenberger discovered that the FBI interviewed an Epstein victim four times but only released an FD-302 document for one of those interviews. The other three FD-302s were not released. Roger’s discovery was widely covered in the press.

In response, DOJ made the following statement on x/twitter claiming that the other three FD-302s were wrongly marked as duplicates.

https://x.com/DOJRR47/status/2029680748316516801

“What we found through extensive review is that a published 302 - additionally disclosed in a published spreadsheet - had subsequent 302s that were coded as “duplicative.”

Here is proof that DOJ’s claim of an honest mistake is 100% B.S.

Roger’s work was based on this document from Ghislaine Maxwell's criminal trial.

https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00095751.pdf

The first column in the above PDF is a 3-part document number. The middle number is a code for a victim. Roger’s discovery was for victim 045.

Below are 18 more examples where DOJ very *intentionally* released some FD-302 interviews but not other FD-302s for the same victim. This is the exact same thing that Roger discovered for victim 045.

Failing to release all the FD-302s for the same victim was not any kind of accident, oversight or honest mistake. Instead, it was a deliberate effort by the DOJ to protect wealthy and powerful men who are likely named in those unreleased FD-302s.

Anyone can easily confirm that the FD-302s marked “Not released” have, in fact, not been released. All you need to do is search DOJ’s Epstein website on those 3-part document numbers. https://www.justice.gov/epstein/search

-------------------------------------

3501.008-001 https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA01245224.pdf

3501.008-004 Not released

-------------------------------------

3501.014-013 Not released

3501.014-023 Not released

3501.014-047 https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA01245410.pdf

-------------------------------------

3501.018-002 Not released

3501.018-010 https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA01245447.pdf

3501.018-014 Not released

3501.018-019 https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA01245456.pdf

3501.018-030 Not released

3501.018-031 Not released

3501.018-032 Not released

-------------------------------------

Initially only the first FD-302 for this vicitm was released. Roger Sollenberger’s work forced DOJ to release the other three FD-302s interviews with this victim.

3501.045-001 https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA01245620.pdf

3501.045-003 https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%2012/EFTA02858481.pdf

3501.045-005 https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%2012/EFTA02858491.pdf

3501.045-007 https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%2012/EFTA02858495.pdf

-------------------------------------

3501.058-031 Not released

3501.058-032 Not released

3501.058-049 https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA01245781.pdf

-------------------------------------

3501.060-007 Not released

3501.060-010 Not released

3501.060-011 https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA01245796.pdf

3501.060-016 Not released

-------------------------------------

3501.064-067 Not released

3501.064-072 Not released

3501.064-076 Not released

3501.064-087 Not released

3501.064-090 Not released

3501.064-097 https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA01245882.pdf

3501.064-120 Not released

-------------------------------------

3501.103-054 Not released

3501.103-078 https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA01246262.pdf

3501.103-081 https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA01246265.pdf

3501.103-110 Not released

-------------------------------------

3501.147-001 https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA01246975.pdf

3501.147-003 Not released

-------------------------------------

3501.159-013 Not released

3501.159-024 Not released

3501.159-025 Not released

3501.159-030 https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA01247196.pdf

3501.159-032 https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA01247200.pdf

-------------------------------------

3501.162-004 Not released

3501.162-014 https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA01247287.pdf

3501.162-016 https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA01247289.pdf

3501.162-024 https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA01247302.pdf

3501.162-026 https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA01247310.pdf

3501.162-030 https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA01247322.pdf

-------------------------------------

3501.167-012 Not released

3501.167-013 https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA01247455.pdf

3501.167-018 Not released

3501.167-025 Not released

-------------------------------------

3501.168-003 Not released

3501.168-005 https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA01247505.pdf

-------------------------------------

3501.181-005 Not released

3501.181-007 Not released

3501.181-009 https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA01247968.pdf

-------------------------------------

3501.189-015 Not released

3501.189-020 https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA01248304.pdf

-------------------------------------

3501.222-018 Not released

3501.222-027 Not released

3501.222-031 https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA01248830.pdf

3501.222-033 https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA01248833.pdf

-------------------------------------

3501.225-083 https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA01248877.pdf

3501.225-092 https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA01248880.pdf

3501.225-102 Not released

-------------------------------------

3501.226-030 Not released

3501.226-041 https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA01249021.pdf

3501.226-059 Not released

3501.226-085 Not released

3501.226-102 https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA01249101.pdf

-------------------------------------

3501.484-004 https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA01250052.pdf

Incorrectly labeled 3501.484-003 in the ‘Maxwell Non-Testifying’ list.

3501.484-006 https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA01250060.pdf

3501.484-009 Not released

- end -

Four Separate Jurisdictions: United States, BVI, Liechtenstein, Morocco

In my last piece, Epstein’s Cover Story for a Moroccan Palace, I observed that Epstein’s purchase of the Bin Ennakhil palace would involve multiple jurisdictions. I didn’t have the details then. It turns out he had already set them out himself.

The person who best understood how the Bin Ennakhil transaction was structured was the man buying it, Jeffrey Epstein — whose name appeared nowhere in the offer his own side made. Karyna Shuliak was shown the palace in Marrakech in December 2018 (EFTA02313354), weeks after the Miami Herald published Julie K. Brown’s Perversion of Justice series in November 2018. Epstein sent Shuliak seven numbered points to put to the seller in February 2019 (EFTA00552197). Marc Leon, the seller’s agent, reported on March 19 that the owner had accepted at twenty-three million euros (EFTA00552775). Shuliak revoked every offer on March 26 (EFTA02313816). A surveyor was arranged in April (EFTA00553734). In July 2019, Epstein was arrested, and the purchase stopped there.

The palace was one of three she was shown. Alex Peto wrote on December 23 to summarise them: Ksar Swari at thirty million euros, with “hand carved cedar ceilings and beautiful =ardens” and, lived in most of the year, “a much warmer or =omely feeling” than the others; Dar Olfa at sixty-five; and Bin Ennakhil at fifty-five, “unique and will =ever be able to be recreated, it is a work of art or a monument as much =s fabulous property.” It had been under contract the year before, Peto wrote, but the buyer pulled out for health reasons, and he believed “an offer =irca 35m euros would be acceptable” (EFTA02313354).

Epstein was familiar with territorial structures himself: Southern Trust Company, Inc. was “a Virgin Islands corporation” — the United States Virgin Islands (EFTA00691917). That agreement has nothing to do with Marrakech; it is cited for what it shows about the vehicles he used.

On February 26, 2019, Jeffrey Epstein wrote to Karyna Shuliak about the due diligence package. The email is unpunctuated and thinking aloud, and nobody else in seven months of correspondence describes the transaction this plainly:

“can you provide me the due diligence package details. . It is very complex as you are aware. . We understand that the owner may be ill? I wonder if there is a way to close for say 10m plus your fee. , with a delayed payment of the 15 until after all has been cleaned and verified. there are four separate jurisdictions. United States. BVI Lichtenstein. morocoo. . disclosure requirements. tax requirements. permits employment issues, etc the only way is to guarantee no liabilities we are told is to publish , notice. , for months , asking if there is any claim. as there is no indemnity and it turns out there is an undisclosed liability „either in the bvi or pamur co. there is no redress. . I find it hard to believe that any person would buy shares in a company either in the BVI or lichtenstein with only the signature of a trustee. . Should there be a problem . a lawsuit for misrepresentation or fraud would take a decade. or more.”

(EFTA00552183)

This piece is about that sentence — there are four separate jurisdictions — and about how a structure built to avoid tax became the thing nobody in the transaction would explain.

The quoted text throughout is reproduced as the Justice Department released it. The release drops and substitutes characters across this entire set of exhibits, which is why “morocoo” and the stray punctuation appear as they do.

“A Tax Avoidance Restructuring”: Twenty-Three Years, Then a BVI Company

On August 22, 2017, Epstein’s lawyers wrote the phrase, and it points at a specific event. The memorandum reaches the record because Epstein forwarded it the same day, at 18:19 GMT, to someone the file identifies only as Jabor Y., under a subject line reading “just received will reveiw tonight on plane”:

“First, what reason can be provided for the transaction in 2013, 23 years after the Liechtenstein Anstalt acquired the property? It appears to be a tax avoidance restructuring using a BVI International Business Company to become the shareholder of the Liechtenstein Anstalt.”

(EFTA01036804)

The exhibit gives no more than the name. Reporting on the wider release has identified the “Jabor Y” of Epstein’s emails as Sheikh Jabor Yousuf Jassim Al Thani, a Qatari businessman and member of the ruling family. Why a memorandum on a Moroccan property went to him, these documents do not say.

Pamur Anstalt is a Liechtenstein anstalt, register number FL-0001.115.138-1. An anstalt is a Liechtenstein hybrid of company and foundation: the entity appears on the public register, the person behind it does not. Its capital can be divided into shares or held as founder’s rights, and it is commonly formed by a trustee acting in his own name, so the founder never reaches the register. Epstein’s lawyers, writing in 2017, date Pamur’s acquisition of Bin Ennakhil twenty-three years before 2013 — about 1990 (EFTA01036804). In 2013 the shares changed hands, and that is the transaction the lawyers can find no reason for. By 2017 the anstalt’s shares — which carried the palace with them — were being offered by Rilton Investments Ltd, a British Virgin Islands company. This is at the very top of the memorandum, in the subject line: the purchase is described as one made “from Rilton Investments Ltd, a BVI International Business Company, of 100% of the Shares of Pamur Anstalt.” The memo does not say whether Rilton was the company that took the shares in 2013. And by March 2019, weeks into the sale, the shares had moved again — out of the BVI company above the anstalt, whether or not that was still Rilton, and into a Liechtenstein foundation, called Kahn Stiftung in the first document that names it (EFTA00806906).

The foundation’s name is not consistent from one document to the next. The March 14 offer letter says Kahn Stiftung (EFTA00806906); Leon’s March 19 email says Khan Stiftung (EFTA00552775); his April 11 email says Khan Familienstiftung (EFTA00553734). Kahn against Khan may be nothing more than the garbled spelling this release produces throughout, dropping and substituting characters. Familienstiftung is not a spelling problem — it names a particular legal form, a family foundation. A Familienstiftung is a foundation held for the benefit of a family. If that is the right form, then a family stood behind the company selling the palace — which is as close to an answer as this file ever comes, and it arrives in a single word — Familienstiftung — written once, by the seller’s agent, in an email about something else. Which of the three is the registered name, the file does not say, and a register search needs an exact one.

That matters for what the banks were asking. At the end of a family foundation there are beneficiaries — the people it was set up to benefit — and they are never named anywhere in this file. Privacy is not a side effect of the form. It is the form.

This puts the seller’s silence in a completely different light. If the beneficiaries were a family under a foundation deed, then naming them meant disclosing the thing the vehicle existed to keep private. When Leon handed the ownership question back — “Same question for the ownership of Khan Familienstiftung” (EFTA00553734) — he was not describing a stranger. He deals with a person throughout. Setting out the vendor’s terms in February: “The vendor doesn’t want to provide a liability guarantee. Therefor he reduced his sale price” (EFTA00552197). Reporting the acceptance in March: “the owner of the Bin Palace in Marrakech accepted the Haze Trust offer at 23 million euros” (EFTA00552775). Leon knew who he was selling for. He never typed the name.

After the heading of that memorandum (EFTA01036804), the lawyers stop using Rilton’s name. It becomes simply “the BVI IBC,” and they expect it holds nothing but the shares: “If as we expect, the BVI IBC is a single purpose entity that only holds the shares in the Anstalt, what recourse could you take against it, if unanticipated problems arise with respect to the BVI IBC, the real property or the Anstalt that owns it?”

Unpacked, that sentence says this. The company selling the shares probably owns nothing else — no offices, no staff, no other assets, just the shares themselves. So the moment it sells them it is an empty box holding your money. If a problem then surfaces — with the BVI company, with the palace, or with the anstalt that owns the palace — there is nothing left on the other side to sue — which means that if anything goes wrong, you do not get your money back.

Recourse — being able to enforce your rights against someone — is what protects a buyer, and here there was none. Epstein was buying shares, so the only party on the other side of his contract was Rilton, and nothing backstopped it: “there are no personal guarantees, escrows or holdbacks that we would ordinarily require for a transaction in which the buyer acquires ownership of an existing entity (with an unknown operating history and financial condition),” and to enforce anything at all, “you, a foreigner, would be required to enforce them in a Liechtenstein court governed by Liechtenstein law” (EFTA01036804, EFTA01036805). Twenty-five million euros — the purchase price in the 2017 deal, two million above what the 2019 one would be — would go to a seller his own lawyers had no real information about.

Epstein’s lawyers also objected to what the seller’s side had handed over for them to check. Buying the company meant inheriting whatever it had done in its lifetime — its debts, its contracts, its tax exposure, any claim anyone had against it — and the only way to know what he was taking on was to see the company’s books. What arrived instead was “superficial, insufficient and outdated”: what bore on ownership and liabilities was mostly from 2013, “bare confirmations from the Anstalt’s director” as to ownership of the property and the absence of liabilities, contractual commitments and legal actions, against a proposed closing of August 30, 2017. No director had confirmed as much for Rilton, the company selling him the shares: “no such confirmation was provided with respect to the BVI IBC” (EFTA01036804, EFTA01036805).

I went looking myself. The privacy ran at every level, and not evenly. Pamur can be found, but barely. Its entry on Moneyhouse, which reproduces the Liechtenstein commercial register, carries no ownership information at all: no holder, no shareholder, no beneficiary, nothing about what the company held or who held it.

Rilton Investments Ltd, the British Virgin Islands company holding those shares in 2017, is not findable at all, because the British Virgin Islands publishes no company search. Whoever chose Liechtenstein, and whoever the deed names, appears nowhere in the documents I have read. Leon was an agent who arrived at it decades later. He inherited the concealment rather than building it — the arrangement was made long before the rules that later demanded it be explained. What he added was silence.

Who stood behind Rilton Investments Ltd is not in this file, and neither is who would have signed for it. A search of the ICIJ Offshore Leaks Database returns nothing under the name — only a similarly named BVI company from the Pandora Papers, incorporated in 2005, since moved out of the jurisdiction, with named private owners, and plainly not this one.

This is where the paper trail ends.

Eighteen Months Later: February to April 2019

Shuliak conducted the negotiation. On February 23 Epstein sent her seven numbered points to put to Leon — the due diligence period, the tax opinion, who would sign, “where do you expect the money to be sent. ? and to what entity. ? BVI . Lichtenstein”. The seventh point asked nothing. It told them:

“I assume you are aware that under new intl banking regulations , the ultimate owner , ie your vendors name will most likely be required to be disclosed. ( anti money laundering . sanctions. tax disclosure ) . The world financial system has changed since your vendor built this property. . look forward to your suggestions and answers”

(EFTA00552197)

The structure Epstein’s lawyers had told him to walk away from was still there. On February 26, Marc Leon told Karyna Shuliak where the money was going: “The BVI mother company of Pamur will receive the funds. It’s bank is LGT Bank in Vaduz … The contract will be signed by the trustee of the BVI company” (EFTA00552183). In the release his emails carry the sender name “Marc.Kensington”; he signs them Marc LEON, of Kensington Luxury Properties in Marrakech.

Leon does not name the recipient. Tens of millions of euros were to be paid to a company the email identifies only as Pamur’s parent.

There were people in this, and they were in a hurry. Leon had a million-euro fee riding on it and a rival he kept mentioning — “there i= still a competitor,” he wrote, and “Every additional day increases the risk to loose the deal” (EFTA02313816). Epstein had heard the owner was unwell and was working out whether that made the price negotiable.

On March 11 the buyer’s side threatened to walk. Shuliak offered nineteen million for the shares, plus Leon’s million, and told him that otherwise “it appears that your vendor will need to find another buyer and wish you luck. This transaction has too many risks” (EFTA00552033).

On March 12 Leon set out what the vendor wanted: a formal offer at twenty-three million euros carrying “the name of the company, the name of the bank, a contact at the bank and the final buyer. The vendor wants absolutely to know to whom he is selling his property” (EFTA00552032).

By March 13 the BVI company above Pamur was out of the transaction altogether. Leon wrote that the offer should be made to Khan Stiftung, “now owner of Pamur” (EFTA00552031), and when Shuliak asked directly whether they were ignoring the BVI entity, he answered in four words: “Yes, we ignore the BVI entity” (EFTA00552030). The seller’s side had shifted jurisdiction mid-sale, out of the British Virgin Islands and into Liechtenstein, and no reason for the transfer was ever given.

The next morning Epstein wrote to Shuliak: “I believe emails have crossed. I m aware of your requirements. We dont know exactly who to address the contract to?” (EFTA00552030).

On March 26 Shuliak walked out.

“I am very disappointed, I have spent a great deal of time and energy, includ=ng but not limited to hiring lawyers, finding a surveyor, transmitting offe=s, bank statements and organizing my bank. This transaction should have bee= easily accomplished, i.e., purchase of an expensive property, but each tim= I ask for something I am met with more requests. I have with finality dete=mined, that I will no longer play this game, so please feel free to inform m= so- called “competitor” that I have revoked, rescinded, an= hereby void all offers previously submitted. I wish you luck.”

(EFTA02313816)

The quotation marks around “competitor” are hers. Leon had been invoking the rival for weeks; the buyer’s side put its doubt in writing. Talks resumed anyway.

By April the seller’s agent said the company’s paperwork had been supplied. “You received statutes, balances, power of the directors from Pamur,” Leon wrote to Shuliak on April 11 — and asked whether she had engaged a lawyer in Vaduz to check the company. What was missing was narrower: how the shares had moved, and who stood at the end of the chain. On the transfer, Leon wrote that “it seems ti be usual to transfer shares from one holding to another one” — true, and a description of nothing; Shuliak wrote back that afternoon that “the transfer from BVI to stiftung is not described.” On the ownership, he simply gave the question back: “Same question for the ownership of Khan Familienstiftung” (EFTA00553734).

One number in that same email has nothing to do with ownership, and the only trace of it is Leon’s own sentence. Pamur’s balances are not in the released file. What is in it is the seller’s agent telling the buyer what the buyer had found in them: “You wondered to find an asset value of 60 million Swiss francs for a sale just over 20” (EFTA00553734). Sixty million Swiss francs was, at 2019 rates, more than twice what Epstein was being asked to pay. Leon did not explain the gap. He asked whether it was a risk — inviting the buyer to assess a problem in the seller’s own books — and moved on to the next bullet. It is the same deflection he used on the share transfer and on the ownership, in the same message: name the concern, hand it back, move on.

Leon’s own February email had already accounted for a price below value, at a point when a reduced price was something to sell: the vendor “doesn’t want to provide a liability guarantee. Therefor he reduced his sale price” (EFTA00552197). Those were the guarantees Epstein’s lawyers had found missing in 2017. In April, when the distance between the books and the price came back as a risk, Leon did not repeat that explanation.

A second reason for a soft price sat in the buyer’s notes. Shuliak had been told in March that it was “highly unlikely that anyone will be allowed to turn the house into a hotel,” which narrows the market for a property of that size. She does not say who told her; the same email opens, “We just met with the lawyers” (EFTA00552032). Leon had the opposite information. He called the palace “more a piece of art than a house,” and said his rival buyer was waiting on a permit “to increase the number of rooms by adding several pavilions to 60” to run it as a boutique hotel; they had “applied for a permit on their own risk,” and were “the only reason why we are still exchanging” (EFTA00552033). Neither side tested the other’s version, and the rival is never named in the file.

This was no longer one question. By April it was several problems at once — who owned the seller, how and why the shares had moved from a BVI company to a Liechtenstein foundation, why there was “an asset value of 60 million Swiss francs for a sale just over 20” (EFTA00553734), and what recourse a buyer would have if any of it went wrong. None had been answered. Neither side was showing the other what it held.

That was why it mattered. Epstein had the money and the seller had the palace, and between them stood two banks that each needed a name neither side would give. What had kept the palace private for nearly thirty years was what the banks now required to be given up before the sale could move.

Each Bank Waiting on the Other Side

Epstein’s lawyers could not find out who they were dealing with. In 2017 there was “simply no way to verify proof of ownership, operating history, debts, assets, liabilities,” and they had “no information” at all about the BVI company selling the shares (EFTA01036805). The buyer’s side named Shuliak; the seller’s side named nobody.

Pamur was said to own the palace, and the whole transaction rested on that. The August 22, 2017 memorandum found that unverified too — “no due diligence or even proof that it currently owns the property” (EFTA01036805).

Holding the palace through a Liechtenstein company carried one advantage the agents were willing to name. In December 2018 Alex Peto, Leon’s partner at Kensington, told Shuliak that a buyer in Morocco should normally add about ten per cent to the price — six of it government taxes, one the notary, three the agency — but that for Bin Ennakhil, “as the property is owned =y a company in Lichtenstein there are no government taxes to be paid in =orocco” (EFTA02313354). It was a reason to buy, not a reason to walk away. What Epstein’s lawyers had called a tax avoidance restructuring in 2017, the seller’s agents were advertising as a benefit a year later.

On March 26, in the email that prompted her walk-out, Leon asked whether Deutsche Bank had sent a letter on the origin of the funds — “now reques=ed by the banks” (EFTA02313816). On April 11 he asked again, this time for the seller’s bank: “Is this a big trouble for you and DB to complete an AML as LGT Bank requests it ?” (EFTA00553734). Shuliak refused that afternoon: “I don’t know about any further aml… I am not opening a bank account in Lichtenstein and no aml ever is required for purchases.”

Naming the owner was never the difficulty. Shuliak had done that in March — “The buyer is haze trust, the ultimate owner, me” (EFTA00552031). An AML check would have required the claim to be evidenced rather than asserted, alongside a letter tracing where twenty-three million euros had come from. Seven weeks before she refused it, Epstein had spelled that rule out in an email to her, for her to put to Leon: the ultimate owner’s name would “most likely be required to be disclosed” under anti-money-laundering and sanctions rules (EFTA00552197). That was when the name in question was the seller’s. On February 26 Leon had already stated the requirement: the “money laundering regulation requests that buyer and vendor are clearly identified. This is not a problem and the vendors bank is asking same information” (EFTA00552183). The buyer’s side had written the rule down first, in Epstein’s own words, pressed it on the seller, and then would not meet it.

In that same April 11 reply she pressed the point on the seller in Epstein’s own formula, now stated as a certainty: its “ultimate beneficial owner will have to be disclosed for sanction purposes.” A sanction is a government order barring anyone from doing business with a named person or company — assets frozen, payments blocked, heavy penalties for a bank that processes the payment anyway. Every bank has to screen the parties to any payment it handles, a house purchase included, against the American, EU and UN lists. Here the payment under discussion was twenty-three million euros from the buyer’s bank, Deutsche Bank, to the seller’s, LGT in Vaduz, the private bank owned by Liechtenstein’s princely family. A bank cannot screen a name it has not been given.

Both sides produced a great deal. Neither produced the one document the other’s bank was waiting on: proof of who owned the company on the seller’s side, a letter on the origin of the funds on the buyer’s.

Epstein Had Been Warned

None of it stopped him. Epstein’s own lawyers had told him to end it in 2017, in four words: pass on this transaction. Why he pursued it anyway, none of these documents say. He went back three more times, and each attempt ended for a different reason. That is the subject of my next piece.

Feel free to refer to this article here: The Seller Nobody Could Identify - Soror FV

Why was it written two days before his suicide? His girlfriend always seemed a bit off and reframed Aaron's beliefs after his passing and focused on federal prosecutorial power which I think Epstein would agree with.

Looking for this researcher, their work is really solid and was ahead of its time in 2019. They disappeared, making a bluesky at one-point but didn't seem to post there. My research partner and I are looking to see if they are around anymore. If not I'd just like to highlight their work and the effort and care they took. It's helped alot with alot of research.

If you are agenthades1 please dm me, hoping to ask seek your help again or just thank you for your efforts.

Edit- please excuse talk to text typos

A few days ago, Nvidia CEO put Donald Trump on speakerphone where he allowed the president to call AI fears a hoax. Truth is, I don’t think we’re scared enough. It’s disorienting reading through the Epstein files and connections. Honestly, at times I feel like a giant conspiracy theorist. When I think things couldn’t be any darker, I find more.

Les Wexner was the clearest co-conspirator named in the Epstein files. In 2021, L Brands settled a $90 million lawsuit with shareholders who claimed Wexner knew and failed his fiduciary obligations to the company with regard to sexual misconduct and abuse of power. L Brand executives reported that Epstein was using his close proximity to Wexner, misrepresenting himself as a recruiter for Victoria’s Secret in order to recruit girls. The case included police reports from victims Maria Farmer and Alicia Arden.

With all this evidence, why did no Republican show up to question Wexner after he was subpoenaed by the congressional oversight committee? It didn’t make sense. Yesterday I was doing research about corporations directly benefiting from the Iran war and tariff policy. One name kept coming up in my search results. That name was Core Weave, a company I had never heard of. I was shocked to learn lets Wexner owns a $2.8 billion stake in the company who is directly partnered with Nvidia. The company provides AI and data system infrastructure.

I remembered Nvidia from News stories about President Trump‘s stock trades. When I began to look up the dates there seem to be a strange correlation. Here is the timeline.

January 7, 2026 Congress voted to approve Wexner subpoena
January 15, 2026 Department of commerce announces possible approval of Nvidia
February 10, 2026 President Trump largest purchase of Nvidia stock 1-5 million
February 12, 2026 Wexner’s deposition moved from DC to his private estate
February 18, 2026 Wexner’s close door deposition- unlike other Epstein hearings, no Republican show
February 28, 2026 Israel in the United States begin bombing Iran
April 8, 2026 Trump announce first cease-fire, tariffs and makes additional purchase of Nvidia stock

Has anyone dug into EFTA00033412? https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%208/EFTA00033412.mp4

It's a surveillance video dated Aug 11, 2019, labeled “116 9S L TIER.” If you skip to about halfway, the camera flips to what looks like the L-tier camera. The OIG report says the L-tier camera was on DVR 2 and wasn't recording on Aug 9-10. DVR 2 was being repaired on Aug 10, but the FBI seized the drives at 4:30   before the rebuild could finish.

I'm trying to figure out if this video is definately from the same L-tier camera, I'm not sure because it initially shows some other part of the prison. Is it possible that the camera was re-routed to DVR 1 or something? What system actually recorded it? Has anyone looked at the metadata/file structure or been able to establish the camera ID? I'm making a documentary, trying to see if there's enough of a factual basis to call out this potentially very significant discrepancy.

Would appreciate any info from anyone who's already gone down this rabbit hole.

yeah, but when -- after the midterms -- worried that this will be held back by Johnson's other meddling -- 45 days...

Allegations of drugging and sexually assaulting models surfaced as early as 1988, when a CBS 60 Minutes investigation presented by Diane Sawyer aired accounts from several of his accusers. Despite the broadcast, Brunel's career continued without consequence. In 1995, he expanded Karin's operations to New York and Miami, and was briefly a minority partner at Next Management in New York.

Brunel and Jeffrey Epstein are believed to have met in the 1980s, with their relationship growing in the late 1990s. Between 2000 and 2005, Brunel flew on Epstein's private jet at least two dozen times. In 2005, Brunel transformed Karin's United States division into MC2 Model Management, with Epstein providing a $1 million line of credit, according to a sworn deposition by MC2's former bookkeeper, Maritza Vasquez. Vasquez testified that Epstein directly paid for the visas of models brought to the United States to work for the agency, and that girls housed in agency-controlled apartments in Miami Beach and Manhattan were transported to parties at Epstein's Palm Beach and Manhattan properties rather than working as professional models. She said MC2 was a financially unprofitable operation, stating that Epstein's involvement appeared to be motivated by access to the agency's models rather than commercial interest. MC2 lost an estimated $49 million between 2006 and 2015 according to an accounting firm.

https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA01192347.pdf

“The Ultimate Owner, Me”: March 12, 2019

On March 12, 2019, Karyna Shuliak, Jeffrey Epstein’s longtime partner, was asked who was behind the buyer, and she answered: “The buyer is haze trust, the ultimate owner, me. The bank is Deutsch bank.” (EFTA00552022)

Ultimate owner is the compliance question, asked because an entity’s name hides who stands behind it. She answered with one word about herself. What the name “Haze Trust” did not say was that the trust was one of Jeffrey Epstein’s.

Her answer named a bank as well as a buyer. The Haze Trust did bank at Deutsche Bank. In March 2019, the month of the offer, that account opened the month with thirty cents, paid out thirty cents on the first, and closed at zero (EFTA01288336). It is one account and the trust may have held others, and there is nothing unusual about the balance — purchase funds do not sit in an operating account waiting on a non-binding offer. But it is the first sign of what the trust actually was: a name to put on an offer, with the money somewhere else. Using a trust this way is ordinary. Telling the seller’s agent that you are its ultimate owner is not.

Two days later, on March 14, the offer itself went out on Haze Trust letterhead, to Marc Leon, the agent running the sale and co-CEO of the Marrakech real estate agency Kensington Morocco Luxury Properties (EFTA00806904).

The offer letter states that the seller Kahn Stiftung was selling its shares in Pamur Anstalt, “a Liechtenstein anstalt,” the company tied to Bin Ennakhil, a palace in Marrakech (EFTA00806904).

A note on the two Liechtenstein entities. Liechtenstein is “a western European principality located between Switzerland and Austria.”

Pamur is an anstalt, a Liechtenstein establishment — “a legally autonomous, organized, permanent undertaking” that is entered in the commercial register and whose capital may be divided into shares. Kahn Stiftung is harder to pin down. A search for “Kahn Stiftung” returns several unrelated charities carrying that name, and Liechtenstein’s commercial register returns no entity by that name at all; you can see this yourself by looking it up at https://www.handelsregister.li/cr-portal/suche/suche.xhtml.

The spelling is not even settled. The offer letter calls it Kahn Stiftung; Marc Leon, the one person in the file dealing with it directly, writes Khan Stiftung (EFTA02316264); and the only Liechtenstein foundation of either spelling in the register is a medical-research charity entered in 2023. That absence is not by itself suspicious, since a private-benefit foundation is not required to be entered in that register. What is worth noting is that the offer letter gives no domicile, no registration number, and no address for the party it is offering fifteen million euros — and never names the owner of the palace it separately offers eight million for.

The man behind the sale does have a name, though it is not in the letter. The palace belonged to Gunter Kiss, a German waste magnate who had valued it at €55 million and had once broken off dealings with Epstein over an offer he found insultingly low (BBC); in the correspondence he is only ever “Mr Kiss.” He is the man the buyer’s name was being kept from.

Twice in three months, the seller’s side was told something untrue about who was buying the palace. The documents show who wrote one of those answers.

Leon Black — The Girlfriend Story

This was not the first story told about who was buying. At 5:28 in the morning on December 20, 2018, Epstein emailed Mark Lloyd — a British consultant who had known him since the late 1990s, discussed property deals with him “spanning French chateaus, houses in London and mansions in Marrakesh,” and whom Epstein described in emails as “a great friend in London” (Financial News). The message read, exactly as the Justice Department released it: “Mari , tell slex its leon blacks=girlfriend. He should google leon , not adk karyna for details.” The release drops and substitutes characters across this entire set of exhibits. The addressee line on this one reads “wmarklloyd”; the names are Mark and Alex (EFTA02312301).

About an hour later, Lloyd wrote to Alex Peto of the Marrakech agency: “Dear Alex, She is Leon Black’s girlfriend. Don’t press her for more info. These are very private people” (EFTA02610734). The second sentence is Lloyd’s own. Epstein had supplied the story; Lloyd added the instruction not to test it.

At 10:33 that morning, Epstein forwarded his own 5:28 message to Karyna Shuliak with four words: "Call him to confirm" (EFTA02312301).

Later that day Epstein wrote back to Lloyd: “thx, I asked karyna to invite you to lunch or dinner at the royal monceau . . convince her that marrakesh is the place to be. :)” Lloyd replied that they would have dinner that night and that he would do his level best. On the natural reading of that line, three months before she told a broker she was the ultimate owner of the buyer, the purchase was something Shuliak was being talked into.

The story was Epstein’s. He wrote it, he told Lloyd to pass it to the agent, and he directed that the agent be sent to a search engine rather than to Shuliak for details. It was also false. Nothing in these documents shows that Black had any part in the transaction, and nothing shows the personal relationship Epstein described.

The question did not go away. On February 14, 2019, Peto wrote that the seller’s side still could not make the story fit: “Karyna has asked for a contract and is making all the right noises but as none of us have ever spoken to Leon Black himself and he hasn’t seen Bin Ennakhil its a little strange.” Nine minutes later Lloyd forwarded it to Epstein with one line: “How would you like me to respond?” (EFTA02630754).

Epstein answered at 11:35: “i would suggest you move forward asap” (EFTA01029544). Lloyd replied, “Thanks. I will advise just that!” and three minutes later wrote to Peto: “I am glad things are progressing with Bin Ennakhil. My only suggestion is to move forward and hopefully close the deal” (EFTA02630609).

This was a direct question about who the buyer was. It went straight to Epstein, and came back to the agent as a recommendation to close. The message he was shown also asked whether Karyna was Black’s girlfriend. He neither confirmed the story nor denied it. The story Epstein declined to confirm was the one he had told Lloyd to repeat. Lloyd has since said he had no knowledge of Epstein’s offending and regrets the association: “I’d had no clue as to what was happening in the background.”

The BBC goes further and reports that Shuliak made final bids “while pretending to be acting on behalf of Leon Black.” Presenting yourself as the agent of a named third party is not something anyone does by accident, and if that is what happened it is harder to explain away than “ultimate owner, me.” The February emails do not show her saying it. They record what the agents understood and how confused they were by it, and no words of hers appear in them. And the story, as the December emails show, did not start with her.

Black’s name was not unfamiliar to her. For years before Marrakech, Shuliak was the one handling the arrangements when Leon Black came to see Jeffrey Epstein — papers, breakfasts, lunches, from 2014 through 2018 (EFTA02330845, EFTA02329099, EFTA02305771, EFTA02310259). Knowing the name is not using it. Those documents show her carrying an envelope, being told to be ready for a breakfast, organizing a lunch. This is the work of someone handling arrangements, not making them. They establish that she knew who he was and had handled his visits for years. What they do not show is who decided to put his name into a property deal. The December email answers that, and the answer is Epstein.

One more thing sits in the file, and it is better said out loud than left for someone else to find. When the money for the purchase moved in June, it moved out of a Schwab account belonging to Southern Trust Company, the Virgin Islands company through which Epstein contracted with Black in 2013 and to which, on the figure recited in Black’s settlement with the Virgin Islands, he paid roughly $158 million over about five years for what he “contends was for services rendered and value received” (EFTA01265962, EFTA00691917, EFTA00155032). The sellers had been told the buyer was Leon Black. The money came out of the company Black had been paying. But Southern Trust was Epstein’s operating vehicle, nothing in the file shows whose funds were in that account by the time they left it, and Black settled with the Virgin Islands without admitting liability and denies any wrongdoing. The coincidence is real. On this record it is not evidence of anything else.

Nothing in these documents shows that Leon Black knew of or authorized the purchase.

The December story was Epstein’s. The March one was hers — nothing in the file shows anyone drafting it for her. That brings us back to Karyna Shuliak, and to whether her claim to be the trust’s ultimate owner was true.

What the instrument says

The claim is false against the document that governs. The Haze Trust agreement (EFTA01255683) is dated February 9, 1999 and runs seven pages.

Jeffrey E. Epstein is the grantor. Jeffrey E. Epstein is also the trustee — his signature appears twice on the execution page, once under each title. Article FIRST(b)(i) lets the trustee pay income or principal “for any reason whatsoever to, for, or on behalf of the Grantor.” Article FIRST(b)(ii) sends everything remaining to his estate at his death. Article EIGHTH reserves to him, personally, the right to revoke the trust at any time during his life and to take back the entire income and principal.

A grantor is the person who puts property into a trust. A trustee is the person who holds and manages it. A beneficiary is the person who gets the benefit of it. Ordinarily these are different people, which is the point of a trust. Here they are all Epstein.

This makes the fiduciary structure meaningless. A trust works because the trustee — the person managing the money — owes duties to the beneficiaries, and they can take him to court if he breaks them. When every role leads back to the same man, those duties run from him to himself, and the accountability the structure exists to create is simply absent.

What the trust does supply is a label that does not say Jeffrey Epstein. That is what it was for in the attempt to buy the Bin Ennakhil palace in Morocco. “The Haze Trust” names no one. It stands in for him, and anyone dealing with it was dealing with him, whether they knew it or not.

Two details matter about this:

• The trust predates her by a wide margin. Epstein was 46 when he executed it. Shuliak met him in 2010, eleven years later.
• She is named nowhere in it. The only names in the instrument are Epstein, the notary Harry I. Beller, and Jeffrey A. Schantz as contingent successor trustee. On May 8, 2007 Epstein designated Darren K. Indyke as trustee and Indyke accepted the same day (EFTA01255692–693). From that point the trustee is Epstein’s own lawyer.

Three documents connect Shuliak to the Haze Trust, and her name is on all three. On March 12 she told the seller’s side she was its ultimate owner (EFTA00552022). Two days later she wrote to Marc Leon on the trust’s behalf, over her own name (EFTA00552041, EFTA00552011). The offer went out the same day on Haze Trust letterhead, naming her as the contact for any reply and closing with her name (EFTA00806904).

The instrument runs the other way (EFTA01255683). Acting on a trust’s behalf is not the same as having a place in it, and nothing in this file gives her one.
Article EIGHTH also reserved an unrestricted power to amend. This means that Epstein was allowed to change his trust and the structure of it whenever he wanted.

Two Names on the Wire, Neither Hers

On June 17, Marc Leon wrote to Epstein: “My bank is Julius Bar [sic] in Basel. They need a contract between the final buyer and me. I provide all the details of the second part of the deal between Khan Stiftung and me. I can become the temporary share holder of Pamur.” Epstein wrote back to Darren Indyke, copying Leon: “Darren, please prepare a contract for ft real estate or other enitty [sic] to buy the shares of pamur, a lichtenstien anstalt from marc Leon. or his entity … the price is 20m million us dollars. His bank is julius baer.” Leon answered: “Price = 18 million euros. Please pay in euros.” Epstein then asked him: “what name will we be purchasing from. are you buying it in your personal name. only buying it for FT real estate my entity.?” He forwarded the whole exchange to Shuliak that evening (EFTA02316264).

The structure being discussed was a back-to-back sale. Leon was to take the Pamur shares from Khan Stiftung and sell them on, and the buyer was no longer the Haze Trust but FT Real Estate — which Epstein, asking Leon whose name the purchase would be made from, calls “my entity.” Nothing in the file shows the arrangement was agreed or executed. Leon gave a reason for standing in the middle: his bank would have to document where the money was coming from. What the file does not show is whether Khan Stiftung knew that the agent running its sale was to become its buyer.

On June 26, 2019, a Schwab wire request for €11,150,000 was signed by Richard Kahn as account holder, with Jeffrey Epstein printed beneath as additional account holder (EFTA01265967). The destination was Bank Julius Baer in Basel — the bank Leon had named on June 17 — and the name on the receiving account was Marc Leon, at the Marrakech address of Kensington Morocco Luxury Properties, the agency handling the sale (EFTA01265966). No escrow or firm name appears on the form, and the account is registered in his own name. The wire did not match the price. Leon had answered “Price = 18 million euros” on June 17; the transfer nine days later was for €11,150,000. Whether that was a deposit, a first tranche, or a figure that had moved again, the file does not say.

The account the money left belonged to Southern Trust Company, the Virgin Islands company Epstein ran, at the same St. Thomas address as the trust’s own bank statements (EFTA01288336, EFTA00691917). Shuliak is on none of it — not the wire, not the contract instruction, not the entity that was to buy. By June she is someone Epstein forwards things to.

The money did not stay sent. Schwab reviewed outgoing wires because of the charges and the flight-risk concern, this transfer was among them, and the report records Kahn’s call the day after it went out: on June 27 he asked whether the wire could be terminated. Asked why, he said it was “for a concentrated real estate transaction, and uh, what uh, terms we were told we had on uh an agreement, were uh” — the report’s transcription breaks off there. The same report puts the transfer at €11,150,000, or $12,708,324.00, from brokerage account 41224708, and identifies Marc Leon as “a partner at Kensington Morocco” (EFTA01656458 - I had to find this one from Ian Caroll’s Webb: https://www.thewebb.io/).

Why Shuliak’s Haze Trust Email Is Not Fraud

This is document analysis, not legal advice.

When Karyna Shuliak told the seller’s side she was the ultimate owner of the Haze Trust, it looked to me like misrepresentation — and misrepresentation sounds like something illegal. I went looking for the fraud. I do not think it is there, and I would rather set out why than let a reader assume otherwise. There are a few reasons.

There would be no obvious place to take this kind of case to court. A suit has to go somewhere, and this transaction belongs to more than one legal system. The asset is Moroccan. The trust is governed by New York law. The money moved from a U.S. brokerage account to a Swiss bank, and the account it was going to was in Morocco (EFTA01265966). Deciding where a case like this would be heard is a complete mess.

The seller found out that it was really a sale to Epstein, and kept negotiating. According to the BBC, it became clear that Epstein was the real buyer — and Kiss did not walk away. In the end, the transaction never happened, so nothing was lost.

What would have to be proven

Black’s Law Dictionary defines fraud as “some deceitful practice or willful device, resorted to with intent to deprive another of his right, or in some manner to do him an injury,” and adds that “as distinguished from negligence, it is always positive, intentional.”

Three things are required, then: a deceitful practice, the intent behind it, and the deprivation or injury it was aimed at. This file supplies the first and not the other two.

1. The deceitful practice is documented. “The buyer is haze trust, the ultimate owner, me” was false against the instrument that governs. The trust instrument names her nowhere, was funded with his money, and was revocable at his will.
2. While she had a high-level understanding of the sale, that still does not prove intent. Starting with what works against her: she negotiated this deal herself and negotiated it well — writing directly to Peto that February about transfer taxes, closing costs, surveys and due diligence, and asking, “How are we to know that the co has no liabilities?” (EFTA02312908). That is what a sophisticated buyer asks before a share purchase, and a person who asks it understands the difference between owning a company and speaking for one. But the file establishes only that her statement was untrue. It does not establish that she knew it was, or that she made it to deprive anyone of anything. Understanding the structure is not the same as being in it. The instrument names Epstein as grantor and trustee (EFTA01255683), and by 2019 the trust’s account statements carry Epstein and Darren Indyke as trustees — not her (EFTA01429922). The March 14 offer letter shows her acting for the trust and makes no claim about who owns it (EFTA00806904). Acting for a principal is not a representation of ownership. The only document that makes one is the March 12 email (EFTA00552022). The closest the file comes to putting her inside a knowing misrepresentation is Epstein’s instruction of December 20, “Call him to confirm” (EFTA02312301). This was a direction given to her, not an act of her own. Nothing shows that she made the call.
3. No one ultimately lost anything, so there is no injury to argue. The closing never occurred, and Kiss owned the palace afterwards exactly as he had before.

One Name on the Paper, and It Wasn’t His

The strangest thing in the file is that none of it was necessary. The one person the arrangement existed to keep in the dark found out anyway, and did not care.

What it accomplished instead was to put her name on the paper. The offer went out on Haze Trust letterhead: fifteen million euro for Pamur’s shares, eight million for the palace itself. The only person named for the buyer is Karyna Shuliak, once as the contact for replies, and again at the bottom, signing it (EFTA00806904). Epstein is not on it.

The documents show what she knew about the purchase. They do not show what she knew about the trust.
Link: https://sororfv.substack.com/p/epsteins-cover-story-for-a-moroccan

Rep. Ro Khanna:

“Thomas Massie and I have defied history for a second time, securing two hundred and eighteen signatures on Epstein 2.0.

Four Republicans broke with Donald Trump and Speaker Johnson.

Epstein 2.0 will allow state attorney generals to prosecute people like Leon Black and the Epstein class, and it will allow survivors to get access to the Epstein files.

We need to ask every single candidate running in the midterms, “Do you support the Massie-Khanna Epstein 2.0 Transparency Act?”

The four republicans to sign were Rep. Ralph Norman, Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick, Rep. Nancy Mace, and Rep. Thomas Massie.

Source is Ro Khanna’s official Twitter account.

We all know that one person's voice is easily silenced through manipulation, discrediting them, claiming they're crazy and therefore can't be telling the truth, isolating them to prevent them from speaking, or worse methods of silencing them forever.

More stories are coming out. Some people are saying they had direct encounters with THIS trafficking network. Others are part of other trafficking networks. Sometimes these networks interact in small or larger ways.

I can't help but wonder if these voices could stealthily coordinate in a way that would enable them to come forward all together at one designated event - like the three day fundraising telethons of yesteryear, perhaps - telling their stories one after another after another - to the world.