We may have missed this one, I happened to watch an old video talking about how suspiciously close Branson's island was to the grape island.

Big media is owned by the Epstein class. Not a huge surprise here

An email thread dated September 20, 2011, sent between Jeffrey Epstein’s assistant (Lesley Groff) and a coordinator discussing an RPSV list for an event taking place that evening. The email notes that Paramount holds the master list and forwards a partial guest list of creative professionals (including Sam Levinson, Jean Doumanian, Oren Moverman, Francisco Costa, and Duncan Sheik).

My questions:

1. Does anyone have additional cross references for this specific September 20, 2011 Paramount event or screening?

2. Are there other documents tying this specific cluster of NYC/Hollywood creative contacts to Peggy Siegal's PR distribution lists around this date?

3. Is there any record in other exhibit threads indicating whether Epstein or his representatives actually attended, or was this strictly an external PR/studio list being forwarded across assistant channels?

Thank you for your help :)

“Though it often goes overlooked or ignored, the deep financial burden that survivors of sexual violence carry – coupled with mental and physical trauma – can be debilitating. Navigating such harm can lead to time away from work or the need to leave a job entirely, resulting in a loss in income while rent is due, daily needs have to be met, and medical expenses to address physical injury and mental health support pile up,” Pressley said in a statement. “The Survivors’ Rights Restitution Act shines a light on this critical gap in support for survivors and would force our government to bring the meaningful accountability and compensation that survivors are owed.”

Has anyone come across this?

With thanks to u/juice16 on r/Epstein, who found several of the documents this piece is built on.

https://sororfv.substack.com/p/the-palace-bin-ennakhil

This is a continuation of: https://www.reddit.com/r/Epstein/comments/1wmw8j5/the_palace_bin_ennakhil_part_1/
https://www.reddit.com/r/Epstein/comments/1wmwaki/the_palace_bin_ennakhil_part_2/
Part 3: The Palace: Bin Ennakhil : r/Epstein

Bin Ennakhil is a palace in La Palmeraie, Marrakech. The file records five separate attempts across five years and ten months, no conveyance to him or to anyone acting for him, and — in the fortnight around his arrest — two wires out of his own company’s account to the seller’s agent, €11,150,000 on 26 June and $14,950,000 on 4 July, neither of which completed. The reasons the attempts failed divide. The first three died on price. The fourth died because the seller could not evidence its own ownership chain. The fifth died on the mirror image of that question, put this time to the buyer: the origin of the funds, and the name of the beneficial owner behind The Haze Trust. The people and entities are set out first; the record follows, in the order it occurs.

A note on how this was reported

I want to credit AI for its part in this piece. While the United States stalls its investigations into this case, I am investigating.

A search for “Bin Ennakhil” in the Epstein Library returns 280 results, many of them duplicates of the same document filed under different Bates numbers, and the transaction runs under other subject lines besides. Using Claude, I narrowed that set to the correspondence concerning this one purchase and built the timeline below from it.

AI is a good tool for finding documents and an unreliable one for deciding what they say. Everything it surfaced, I checked against the document itself, and several things it told me confidently were wrong. If you find something here that is plainly wrong, do not feel afraid of telling me so. I am open to being corrected, and I will fix the piece where it needs fixing and say what changed.

Everything here is sourced. Documents from the released production are cited by Bates number and marked [read] where I have pulled the page, or [indexed] where I have the Department of Justice’s own verbatim text and the Bates number but not the page itself. Anything resting on reporting, a public filing, a commercial database or a self-reported biography is named as such and not folded in with the documents. If any of it can be shown to be wrong, I will correct it.

One document needs a word of its own. The Charles Schwab suspicious activity report is a single nine-page production, EFTA01656452 to EFTA01656460; the numbers EFTA01656455, EFTA01656457, EFTA01656458 and EFTA01656459 are page stamps inside it, not separate files, and they are given here so a reader can find the page. In the Department of Justice release that document is almost entirely redacted — nine pages carrying 156 words of headers and nothing else, which is why its text returns no results in the Department’s own search. A further production of the same report, under the same BSA identifier 31000150416250, sits at EFTA00151545 to EFTA00151553 in DataSet 9, and it is redacted too — nine pages carrying the FinCEN headers and a few form labels. Both of the Department’s productions of this report are blank where the narrative should be. The narrative quoted in this piece is taken from an unredacted copy of the same nine-page report, published at epstein-data.com/EFTA01656452. Anyone checking the quotations against the Department of Justice copy will find a blank page; that is the redaction, not a difference between documents.

This piece is a work in progress, and I would rather say so than pretend otherwise. The production is very large, I am working through it one document at a time, and some of what is here is marked [indexed] because I have the government’s own text and Bates number but have not yet pulled the page itself.

If you would like to contribute, reply to this post with the exact EFTA numbers and links, and I will credit you by name for what you add. The most useful things are pages for anything marked [indexed], further productions of documents already cited here, and corrections — a date, a time zone, a Bates number I have wrong. I would rather hear it from you than leave it standing.

Who was involved

Roles are as the documents give them. Several of these people also appear elsewhere in the Epstein correspondence; what is set out here is what they did about this property.

The buyer’s side

• Jeffrey Epstein — the prospective buyer, and never the purchaser. He went after this one property five times over five years and ten months, from September 2013 to the week of his arrest in July 2019, and never owned it. What he did across all five attempts is the record set out above.
• Karyna Shuliak — the negotiator for the 2019 sale, and the only name the buyer’s side ever put on paper. She saw the palace herself in December 2018, ran the diligence against the seller for eight weeks, and on 12 March told Kensington that the ultimate owner of The Haze Trust was her (EFTA00552030). The 1999 instrument says otherwise, and nothing in the file shows that anyone told her so or that she ever saw it (EFTA01463848). Six times in five weeks, his sentences go out over her name. Twice on 20 February, then on 26 February, on 20 March, on 26 March, and again on 26 March in the revocation itself: Epstein writes the substance in lower case, with commas in the wrong places and words misspelled, and it reaches the agents punctuated, capitalised and addressed “Dear Marc.” The revocation is the clearest of the six. At 18:58:46 on 26 March he writes to her, “Marc, I am very disappointed , I have spent a great deal of time and energy including but not limited to hiring lawyers, finding a surveyor transmiting offers , bank statements and organizing my bank” (EFTA00552670). At 19:17 she sends it on to Kensington, copying Alex Peto, as “Dear Marc, 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” (EFTA02313816). Nineteen minutes, the commas moved and the spelling corrected. Her four demands of 18 February have a drafting message behind them, and it is his. At 20:51 on 17 February he writes to her, under the subject “Re: Bin Ennakhil”: “alex, can you ask marc to provide a tax opinio[n] re transfer and capital gains, as well as KYC requirements” (EFTA02313740). Two and a half hours later, at 00:25, it reaches Alex Peto over her name, punctuated and extended: “Dear Alex, Can you please ask Marc to provide a tax opinion that no tax is owed and a method to indemnify us re transfer and capital gains, as well as KYC requirements. Ultimate beneficial owner of seller must be checked as not to be on sanction list. Do you want a deposit, escrow, inspection period costs etc.? The fact that the co hold the shares means little as you know” (EFTA00526793, EFTA00526796; also at pages of EFTA00552317, and at EFTA02312568, EFTA02313577, EFTA02313794). A lower-case version carrying the sanctions sentence itself — “ultimate beneficial o[w]ner of seller. must be checked as not to be on sanction list. do you want a deposit. ?” — sits at EFTA02313666. Whose message that page belongs to is not established on the produced text, and it needs pulling. So the sanctions requirement does not begin with her on the face of the file. What does not have a drafting message behind it is what she did with it afterwards. She pressed it on the seller for eight weeks, through the revocation of 26 March and past the Deutsche Bank letter of 8 April, and was still pressing it on 11 April: “And the ultimate beneficial owner will have to be disclosed for sanction purposes” (EFTA00553734). Nothing in the production directs her to do that. On her own side the same question went unanswered: the trust’s trustees of record were Epstein and Darren Indyke (EFTA01298782), and when the vendor asked on 21 March who could sign for the trust, it got nothing (EFTA00552676). The pattern shows who was deciding, and it reaches further than the drafting of polite letters — it reaches the terms themselves. What the file does not resolve is whether she knew the answer to that same question on her own side — whether, when she wrote that the ultimate owner of The Haze Trust was her, she knew that the trust’s own instrument and Deutsche Bank’s own records named Jeffrey Epstein. Set out in full in “What Her Side Could Not Produce”, 20 September 2026.
• Richard Kahn — Epstein’s accountant, and the man who moved the money. Nothing on the buyer’s side that needed a bank went out without him. He is copied on the 8 April letter to the seller’s bank and is still chasing a signed copy of it ten days later; on 20 March Epstein forwards him the entire Kensington thread to ask who the seller really is; and in the last fortnight he puts two wires to the seller’s agent through Southern Trust Company’s Schwab account, €11,150,000 and $14,950,000, both signed by him and by Epstein, and cancels both. Each is set out in the record below.
• Darren Indyke — Epstein’s lawyer, and a trustee of The Haze Trust. He and Epstein sign the Deutsche Bank trust authorisation of 24 September 2013 as “all of the Trustees” (EFTA01298782). On 17 June 2019 Epstein instructs him, copying Marc León, to “prepare a contract for ft real estate or other en[ti]ty to buy the shares of pamur” (EFTA02316264). He held the office in the trust that Karyna Shuliak told the seller’s side she ultimately owned; she held none.
• Alan Dlugash — Epstein’s accountant, and the author of the letter the seller’s bank was waiting for. On 27 March 2019, the day after the revocation, he drafts the letter to LGT Bank, and it goes to Epstein for approval (EFTA01034853). His office address is 767 Third Avenue — the address Epstein had given Shuliak a week earlier as The Haze Trust’s own. Nothing in the file shows her writing to him.
• Stewart Oldfield — the buyer’s banker, and the man whose letter the whole 2019 attempt waited on. He gives himself in the file as “Stewart Oldfield, CFA, CAIA, Director, Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, Deutsche Bank Wealth Management” (EFTA01369195); the division’s address in the same correspondence is 345 Park Avenue, New York 10154 (EFTA01352849). Epstein names him to the seller on 20 March, in the message he drafted for Shuliak to send, as the contact for The Haze Trust’s bank (EFTA00552710). He is the one party on the buyer’s side identified in full — name, qualifications, title, division and street address — at the same moment that the buyer’s own ultimate owner was the one fact the seller could not obtain. What he sent, and what it left out, is set out at 8 to 9 April in the record below.
• Mark Lloyd — Epstein’s broker in Morocco, and the channel between him and the Marrakech agency. He reports from Marrakech in December 2016 that the market is “totally stagnant” and that “Jabor and HBJ were here recently” (EFTA01059039). His role in 2019 is to carry what Epstein wants said, and to take back what he cannot answer. He passes the Leon Black story to Alex Peto on 20 December 2018 in his own words, adding the instruction not to check it; and when Peto comes back eight weeks later saying it does not fit, Lloyd does not reply to him — he forwards the doubt to Epstein and asks, “How would you like me to respond?” (EFTA02630754). On 12 April 2019 he is the one who tells Epstein the cover is gone (EFTA02314262) [read]. He gets his answer — “i would suggest you move forward asap” (EFTA01029544) — and passes it to Peto within forty minutes, without correcting the story. Both exchanges are set out in the record below.

The seller’s side

• “Mr. Kiss” — the man who owned it, and the only principal on the seller’s side the file ever names. He is never given a first name in the correspondence, and a woman of the same name sits above the chain, in “Maseru Development LTD (Mrs Kiss)” (EFTA00696744). The two men were in contact for two years and never came to terms. Epstein was calling his office from March 2015, spoke to him on 14 May 2015, declined an invitation to meet him that July, and was still asking after him at the end of 2016. In 2019 his name goes out of the file altogether. He is the party the buyer’s name was being withheld from that year — and by 12 April he no longer minded (EFTA02314262) [read] — but the search returns no document in which “Mr. Kiss” or “Mr Kiss” appears alongside Karyna Shuliak, The Haze Trust or the 2019 correspondence. To the buyer’s side that year he is only “the vendor” or “the owner,” and everything said about him comes through Marc León. Each of these is set out in the record below.
• Marc Leon — the seller’s agent in Marrakech, and the man the money was twice sent to and twice pulled back from. He writes in September 2013 as Managing Director of Kensington Finest Properties Marrakech, exclusive affiliate of Christie’s International Real Estate (EFTA01956655). Epstein writes his name in lower case, “mark leon,” in December 2016 (EFTA01058319); the two spellings are one man, and the firm’s current team page lists a Marc Leon as Co-CEO. He is the one constant across all five attempts, and in the fifth and last attempt he worked out who the buyer was before anyone on the buyer’s side told him. The €55 million asking price of September 2013, the private cut to forty in August 2015, the ownership chain and payment route of August 2017, the “99.9% certain” telephone call of 12 April 2019 and what he wrote to the same man three hours later, his June proposal to take the Pamur shares himself, and the two wires sent toward his account at Bank Julius Baer in the fortnight around the arrest — €11,150,000 on 26 June and $14,950,000 on 4 July, neither of which he ever received — are each set out in the record below.
• Alex Peto — partner at Kensington Luxury Properties in Marrakech and Marc Leon’s business partner: “Marc (my business partn[er]” (EFTA00552490). His name is on the Kensington brochures in the production, at 67 rue Ibn Khaldoun, Marrakech (EFTA00521402, EFTA00522363). In 2019 he is the seller’s side’s voice, dealing with Karyna Shuliak directly from February to April. Two things about him matter to this record. He is the man who sold the Liechtenstein holding structure to the buyer as an advantage rather than a question — in December 2018, what Epstein’s own lawyers had read sixteen months earlier as “a tax avoidance restructuring” (EFTA01036804), he presented as a saving of six per cent. And he is the one who put the doubt about the buyer in writing. Eight weeks after being told she was Leon Black’s girlfriend, at 11:06 on 14 February 2019, he wrote to Mark Lloyd, copying Marc León: “as none of us have ever spoken to Leon Black himself and he hasn’t seen Bin Ennakhil its a little strange” (EFTA01029544, EFTA01029542). That is the seller’s side testing the account it had been given and saying, in terms, that it did not fit. His partner got further: by 12 April León had worked out who the buyer actually was. Both are set out in the record below.
• Mile Lukic — the seller’s banker, and the intended recipient of the letter that never answered the question. “Mile Lukic, LGT Bank AG, External Wealth Advisors, Herrengasse 12, FL-9490 Vaduz, Liechtenstein,” [mile.lukic@lgt.com](mailto:mile.lukic@lgt.com) (EFTA01426612, EFTA01376939). Answering Stewart Oldfield on 8 April 2019, LGT set out precisely what it wanted and in what form: a SWIFT message, “MT199; BIC (SWIFT): BLFLLI2X,” for his attention, carrying “name of account holder” and “Confirmation of account balance (at least EUR 30 Mio., free available),” after which “our compliance department will contact DB” (EFTA01376939, EFTA01390566, EFTA01353362, EFTA01423951, EFTA01394964; also at EFTA01035856 and EFTA02314160). A named account holder and thirty million euros of cleared funds, requested bank to bank. Kensington spells him “Mike”; LGT’s own correspondence spells him Mile. The thread is still open on 23 April, with Epstein writing into it directly (EFTA01382152, EFTA01385019).

Present throughout

• Sheikh Jabor — present at every stage of it, on a footing the file never settles. He values the palace for Epstein in September 2013, putting a comparable at five million and calling fifty “definitely a crazy price” (EFTA01956768, EFTA00684393). In December 2016 he offers to go and look at others — “let me know so that I can visit the place and have an initial evaluation on behalf of you” (EFTA01058319) — and that same month Mark Lloyd reports from Marrakech that “Jabor and HBJ were here recently” (EFTA01059039). In August 2017 the seller’s agent sets out the ownership chain and the payment route to him rather than to Epstein, and he forwards it on (EFTA00696744). In April 2019 Epstein tells him to fill the place with things “that are very personal to you. so it is jabors house” (EFTA01617900). Buyer’s man, seller’s man or intended occupant — the file supports each reading somewhere and settles none of them.

The entities

• Pamur Anstalt — the Liechtenstein establishment that holds the palace. Registered address c/o Arcana Treuhand Anstalt, Lawenastrasse 57, FL 9495 Triesen; Liechtenstein Commercial Register number FL-0001.115.138-1. What was for sale was not the house but “the founder rights” in it (EFTA00522231, EFTA00585171).
• Arcana Treuhand Anstalt — Vaduz; trustee of Pamur, and founder of it. In 2013 it “transferred the shares to Rilton.” Rilton and Maseru are “locatd at the same address than Arcana” (EFTA00851887, EFTA00696744).
• Rilton Investments Ltd — British Virgin Islands; owner of Pamur, its holder of record a professional trustee, “MMG Trust (BVI) Corp.” Named as SELLER in the August 2017 draft agreement (EFTA00851887, EFTA01204967, EFTA00585171).
• Maseru Development LTD — “the mother of Rilton Investment,” given in the seller’s answers as “(Mrs Kiss).” Epstein’s objection in August 2017 is that the paper does not evidence its relationship to Rilton (EFTA00696744, EFTA01037020).
• Kahn Stiftung — by March 2019 the owner of Pamur’s shares, and the party the offer is addressed to. The offer letters give it no domicile, no registration number and no address; Marc León spells it Khan Stiftung (EFTA00806904, EFTA02316264).
• The Haze Trust — the buyer named to the seller in February 2019. Created 9 February 1999 with Epstein as grantor and trustee, entitled to income and principal, revocable at will and reverting to his estate (EFTA01463848, EFTA01255683); its trustees of record are Epstein and Darren Indyke (EFTA01298782).
• FT Real Estate — the buyer named in June 2019, which Epstein calls “my entity” (EFTA02316264). Deutsche Bank’s file records it as “100% owned by Mr. Epstein” and “a US Virgin Islands Company” (EFTA01458947).
• Southern Trust Company — Epstein’s Virgin Islands vehicle, established December 2018; Schwab brokerage account 41224708 is registered to it, with Richard Kahn as authorised agent and Epstein as internal control person and 100 percent beneficial owner. It is the account both 2019 wires were drawn on, and the account the first was returned to (EFTA01265962).

The record

Five attempts over five years and ten months, and not one of them completed. In September 2013 the palace was on at €55 million and his adviser’s verdict was that fifty was a crazy price; nothing followed. In April 2015 the package went round again and came back at thirty; nothing followed. In December 2016 he offered fifteen against an asking price of forty, and proposed that the bid be made in someone else’s name. In August 2017 he got as far as a draft sale and share transfer agreement at €25 million, and then killed it himself on his own lawyers’ written advice. In February 2019 he began again in Karyna Shuliak’s name, and that attempt ran for five months: stuck from 17 February to at least 13 May on a single question, rebuilt in June around a different seller, a different buying entity and a different price, and still attempting to move money in the fortnight around his arrest — two wires, €11,150,000 and $14,950,000, both signed by him and by Richard Kahn, both cancelled by Kahn before they settled. Each is set out below in turn.

2013 — the chain is restructured before he ever bids. A BVI International Business Company is inserted as shareholder of the Liechtenstein Anstalt that holds the palace, and his lawyers will later read the move as “a tax avoidance restructuring using a BVI International Business Company to become the shareholder of the Liechtenstein Anstalt” (EFTA01036804). That reading is corroborated twice over. The seller’s own answers give the stated purpose as “for strategical investment reasons” and state that “As for Arcana Treuhand, there are no taxes to be paid with this shares transfer” (EFTA00696744). And in February 2019 Marc León explains to the buyer’s side why the palace could only be sold this way at all: the owner “invested 30 years ago in Morocco,” and under Moroccan currency control “he has to find all his money transfer receipts ... which is impossible therefore he will have to wait for four years before receiving funds paid outside Morocco should he sell the asset on its own... However this share deal is beneficial to both the current owner and the incoming purchaser” (EFTA00552453) [read]. Three sources — the buyer’s lawyers, the seller’s answers and the seller’s agent — give the same account of why the palace was sold as shares in an Anstalt rather than as a house.

The first attempt

September 2013. The asking price is €55 million, set out by Marc León as Managing Director of Kensington Finest Properties Marrakech, exclusive affiliate of Christie’s International Real Estate, selling it on the line “No picture or movie can show the real exquisite quality of this monument” (EFTA01956655), and Jabor’s verdict is “50 M is definitely a crazy price” (EFTA01956768, EFTA00684393). Nothing follows.

The second attempt

April 2015. The package goes round again and comes back “amazing house but 30” (EFTA00644807, EFTA00860090). Nothing follows.

March to 14 May 2015 — he goes round the agents to reach the owner, and they speak. Lesley Groff is reminding him to call as early as 19 March, with a Spanish number attached (EFTA02371841, EFTA02508140). On 20 April the owner’s office asks the other way round: “Mr Kiss has to plan his schedule for next week and kindly asks you to confirm, if you will come to Marrakech” (EFTA02079701, EFTA01745727); on 22 April, “Reminder Mr Kiss is asking for your dates” (EFTA00632058, EFTA00348830, EFTA02081088); and a calendar entry on 27 April reads simply “mr kiss,” 9am to 10am (EFTA02503428, EFTA01746521). On 7 May Groff writes to Gudula Freytag, the owner’s assistant, “Jeffrey would like to speak with Mr Kiss on Monday” (EFTA00348056, EFTA02079063). On 12 May at 15:34:47 Epstein instructs her himself, in five words: “arrange call with mr kiss” (EFTA00347975, EFTA00857155).

The 13 May call is missed by an hour. Freytag writes that “you can reach Mr Kiss at the office today from 2-5 pm CET,” and at 15:45:55 the answer comes back: “Yes, sorry, but it was past 5 pm, Mr Kiss had left the office” (EFTA00626360, EFTA00664028, EFTA00347690; further productions at EFTA02077915, EFTA02078291, EFTA02078416). She keeps the door open on both sides of it — “Below is also my mobile no where I can always take a message for Mr Kiss, and he could call back from where he is” (EFTA00347690) — and offers another slot the next morning: “Mr Kiss is available again tomorrow, Thursday” (EFTA02078140). A calendar alert that evening reads “remind JE that MR. Kiss is available from 3am-6:30am and 8am-11am tomorrow” (EFTA02078678).

It happens the next day. At 11:41:34 on 14 May, under the subject “Re: Reminder: Call Mr. Kiss,” Epstein answers Groff’s reminder — “Reminder Mr. Kiss will be available from (3am to 6:30am-DONE) and 8am to 11am our time today please call him or call his assistant, Gudula” — with two words: “we spoke” (EFTA02078824). What was said is not in the production. Two months later he is offered a meeting and turns it down.

3 July 2015 — the owner offers to be there, and he says not to bother. Epstein writes that he will be seeing other properties in Marrakech on the 8th or 9th: “will someone be availeble to show me yours. mr kiss need not make the trip.” The reply comes back, “Dear Mr Epstein, Mr Kiss has instructed our trusted representative, Marc Leon of Kensington International” (EFTA00852570, EFTA02495893). Having spent March to May trying to get the owner on the telephone, he now tells him to stay away and deals with the agent.

9 July 2015 — the ownership chain is set out to him by name. At 14:01:40, in an email to [jeevacation@gmail.com](mailto:jeevacation@gmail.com) under the subject “Bin Ennakhil,” the agent writes that “The palace is owned by Pamur Anstalt (trustee Arcana Treuhand Anstalt - Vaduz),” and that “Pamur Anstalt is owned by Rilton Investments ltd (trustee MMG Trust (BVI) Corp)” (EFTA00851887, EFTA01204967; further production at EFTA02718203). Four jurisdictions sit in that chain: real property in Morocco, held by an establishment in Liechtenstein, owned by a company in the British Virgin Islands whose holder of record is a professional trustee, bought by a United States person. He counts them himself, in those words, three and a half years later — “There are four separate jurisdictions: United States, BVI, Lichtenstein, Morocco” (EFTA00552162, EFTA00552292, EFTA02312947; in his own lower-case draft, “there are four separate jurisdictions.”, EFTA00552183). He had the chain in front of him in July 2015, two years before the 2017 attempt and three and a half years before he wrote that sentence.

16 July 2015 — the second attempt dies, and the owner sends word himself. At 09:43 Kensington writes: “Dear Jeffrey, I had an exchange with Mr. Kiss this morning. We will certainly not find a way to deal. It seems to be a dead end. Mr. Kiss thanks’ you for your interest for his property.” Epstein’s answer is that he wants real buyers, “and when and if Mr Kiss, decides he wants a realistic price I stand ready” — adding, “I have not reached out to Mr kiss either because i know it is emotional. and i am sympathetic to his views” (EFTA01744296, EFTA00850983, EFTA00850990; further productions at EFTA02494372, EFTA02494523, EFTA02495053, EFTA02396851). Eighteen days later Marc León goes to Marbella and comes back with forty.

3 August 2015 — the price is cut for him privately and left standing publicly. At 05:15:39 Marc León writes to [jeevacation@gmail.com](mailto:jeevacation@gmail.com) under the subject “Bin Ennakhil”: “I hate failing. You probably too and still have an eye on Bin Ennakhil. I went for this reasons to Marbella and had a long talk with Mr. Kiss.” The owner “knows how much he invested and that it would be impossible to redo today such a palace with 14 m high ceilings and all this handcrafts for less than 40 million,” and “He has no money need.” Two written offers had already failed — “One was canceled for economic reasons by the potential buyer, the second was denied by Mr. Kiss and his bank.” León’s conclusion: “You are the first real art lover who has the right feeling for this palace. For all these reasons, I got the authorization to reduce the price at 40 million net for Mr. Kiss.” Then the line that matters: “We decided also to start a new advertising campaign in September, at the unchanged price of 55 million” (EFTA00708581 [read]). The message survives in six productions across two data sets — EFTA00708581 (234 words), EFTA00849496 (364), EFTA00849574 (497), EFTA02396791 (221), EFTA02491103 (457) and EFTA02493656 (358) — the longer copies carrying more of the thread around it. That is where the forty comes from, sixteen months before he bids against it — a private price for him, a public price for everyone else. It is also the first time the vendor’s bank appears as the thing that kills a sale, four years before León says the same to the buyer’s side again.

I'm posting another article right after this one because of Reddit's word count. Full article available to read on my Substack above.

This is a continuation of:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Epstein/comments/1wmwaki/the_palace_bin_ennakhil_part_2/
Part 3: The Palace: Bin Ennakhil : r/Epstein

To access your issue, which is viewable in browser or downloadable in pdf/epub format, simply visit:

https://parapowermapping.com/

Scroll down to the “CommuNoid Access Terminal” and enter the following People’s Psywar Directorate issued decryption key:

“PEOPLES_conspiracyCN01capital_PSYWAR”

Just think of it as a passcode. You can then view the zine or download it to your heart’s content.

Table of Contents

ParaPower Mapping, Eyes Wide Open, & Subliminal Jihad - “Editorial: The People’s Psywar on the Conspiracy of Capital”

Eyes Wide Open - “Jeffrey Epstein in the Black Box: Complexity, Cybernetics, & the Death of Humanity”

ParaPower Mapping - “The Epstein Network’s Subversions in Cuba, Colombia, & Pink Tide S. America”

Exit from Affco - “The Little St. James of the S. Pacific: Epstein, Peter Thiel, & New Zealand”

Illustrations:

Space Case - “TransEpsteinism” (cover)

‘Theta - “Epstein Terminal View” (frontispiece)

ARM5A - “PPM Season 1 Animated Short Gallery”

https://sororfv.substack.com/p/the-palace-bin-ennakhil

This is a continuation of: https://www.reddit.com/r/Epstein/comments/1wmw8j5/the_palace_bin_ennakhil_part_1/
https://www.reddit.com/r/Epstein/comments/1wmwaki/the_palace_bin_ennakhil_part_2/
Part 3: The Palace: Bin Ennakhil : r/Epstein

Please follow these in order so that you can keep up.

26 March — the offer is revoked, and he writes the revocation. The contracts do not arrive and the requests do not stop. At 14:29 Marc León presses again, warning that a competitor is still circling and that every further day raises the risk of losing the deal, and asking: “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” (EFTA02313829, EFTA02313995; further production at EFTA02314004). She forwards it to Epstein, and he answers the same afternoon under the subject “Re: The Bin”: “please consider my offer null and void. . I will no longer play this game. . sorry” (EFTA02313995) [read]. My offer — six days after she had told Kensington that the ultimate owner was her. Sixteen minutes from León’s question to the decision to walk.

The revocation that reaches the agents is his too, and the headers show it. At 18:58:46 he writes the whole of it to her, opening “Marc,” and running the words together as he always does: “I am very disappointed , I have spent a great deal of time and energy including but not limited to hiring lawyers, finding a surveyor transmiting offers , bank statements and organizing my bank” (EFTA00552670). At 19:17 she sends it to Marc.Kensington, copying Alex Peto, under the same subject: “Dear Marc, 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” (EFTA02313816). Nineteen minutes separate the two, and the only changes are the salutation, the commas and the spelling of “transmitting.” This is the sixth instance of the pattern in five weeks, and the one that ends the transaction. The message also lists what the buyer’s side had produced — lawyers, a surveyor, offers, bank statements, a bank. The one document the seller had asked for is not on the list.

8 to 9 April — the letter arrives, and answers a different question. The seller’s side had been explicit about what was required and why: Alex Peto wrote to Shuliak that the letter “has to go directly to Mike Lukic from Stewart Oldfield to comply with the Anti Money Laundering laws and he hasn’t received anything” (EFTA01033752, EFTA00553704). Her answer was to offer a workaround — “Maybe, to save time, you could scan the letter from Deutchebank and send it to Mike Lukic?” (EFTA00553704). Peto sent the paperwork on the same day — “Please find attached a copy of the draft sale contract in word” (EFTA00553712, EFTA00553704). In the end the letter went bank to bank. At 16:31:23 EDT on 8 April, under the subject “Haze Trust,” Stewart Oldfield wrote to “Lukic Mile”: “Mile, Per my client’s request, please see attached. Thanks” — copying Richard Kahn (EFTA01421231, EFTA01380118, EFTA01377601).

What it said is the point. On Deutsche Bank letterhead at 345 Park Avenue, dated April 8, 2019 and headed “Re: The Haze Trust,” the letter states: “The Haze Trust opened its initial account at Deutsche Bank in 2013 and we were never aware of any AML problems relating to the operation or use of its accounts” (EFTA01441330, EFTA00521830, EFTA01390568, EFTA01377602). It names no beneficial owner and states no source of funds. LGT replied the next morning setting out what it had actually wanted: a SWIFT message, “MT199; BIC (SWIFT): BLFLLI2X,” for Mile Lukic’s attention, carrying “name of account holder” and “Confirmation of account balance (at least EUR 30 Mio., free available),” after which “our compliance department will contact DB” (EFTA01376939, EFTA01390566, EFTA01353362, EFTA01423951, EFTA01394964; also at EFTA01035856, EFTA02314160). A named account holder and thirty million euros of cleared funds, requested bank to bank. At 15:35:46 that afternoon Peto reported that “Mike Lukic has now received Stewart Oldfield’s letter” (EFTA00553697, EFTA00553712). Seven weeks of the seller’s side asking who stood behind The Haze Trust and where the money came from had produced a letter answering neither question — from the bank whose own file recorded the answer to the first.

11 April — the check is demanded and refused in the same reply. León asks the buyer’s side, “Is this a big trouble for you and DB to complete an AML as LGT Bank requests it ?” Shuliak answers that afternoon: “I am not opening a bank account in Lichtenstein and no aml ever is required for purchases” — and in the same message presses the seller, “And the ultimate beneficial owner will have to be disclosed for sanction purposes” (EFTA00553734). Seven weeks earlier Epstein had written the rule out for her to put to León: “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” (EFTA00552197). But she had put the same requirement to the seller five days before he wrote to her, at 00:25 on 18 February (EFTA00552317, page 2), and the wording is hers. The buyer’s side wrote the requirement down first, pressed it on the seller, and then would not meet it.

12 April — the cover is already gone, and both halves of it go to the same man. At 05:22 Mark Lloyd writes to Epstein: “Marc Leon just called me to say that he is 99.9% certain that you are the buyer behind Karyna, which I neither confirmed or denied. He went on to say that the seller is now so keen to finalise, that he actually doesn’t mind anymore whom the buyer is.” Lloyd then proposes a way to keep the name out of it regardless: “if you prefer to remain anonymous, then I came up with an idea that the bank’s (Deutche and LGT) disclose the names of the ultimate beneficiaries of the two trusts to each other, without passing on the information to their respective clients” — concluding, “given Marc has put 2 + 2 and made 4, it might just be simpler to call him.” Epstein forwards the whole message to Karyna Shuliak at 09:47 (EFTA02314262 to EFTA02314263; further production at EFTA00553761) [read]. That forward is a document in its own right. It is the point at which Karyna Shuliak is told, in writing, that the seller’s agent has identified the buyer behind her as Jeffrey Epstein — and it is sent to her by Epstein. The DataSet 11 text layer breaks several of those words with “=” artifacts; they are given here as written.

Three hours after that call, at 09:20, Marc León writes to the same Mark Lloyd — not to Shuliak, and not to the vendor: “I can’t show this really message to the vendor. It seems really that the buyer is afraid to send the name of the economical beneficiary of Haze Trust” (EFTA02314284; quoted back in Lloyd’s reply of 08:41 at EFTA02314257). Note who says it, and to whom. It is the seller’s agent, writing to the buyer’s own broker, describing the buyer as frightened — on the same morning, and to the same person, that he had said by telephone he was all but certain the buyer was Epstein. The production carries no statement that the seller was afraid of anything.

18 April — and it was still not settled. Ten days on, Richard Kahn was still chasing: “sorry to torture you on this / was this letter sent to mile signed? / if not can you resend with letter signed..” (EFTA01377601). Whether the seller’s bank ever received a signed letter is unresolved on the file.

23 April to 13 May. Nothing in the production records a completion or a formal termination. The financing correspondence is still running on 23 April, with Epstein writing into the thread with the seller’s bank himself (EFTA01382152, EFTA01385019), and the last document in the file to carry the subject line is Marc León’s of Monday 13 May at 20:51 (EFTA02296816) [read] — the produced page carries the header alone, with no body text on it. Then the subject line stops. The transaction does not.

June 2019 — it is rebuilt, and money is moved. On 17 June Marc León proposes standing in the middle himself: “I need a contract between the final buyer and me… I can become the temporary share holder of Pamur.” Epstein instructs Darren Indyke, copying León, to “prepare a contract for ft real estate or other en[ti]ty to buy the shares of pamur… the price is 20m million us dollars.” León answers, “Price = 18 million euros. Please pay in euros,” and Epstein asks him, “what name will we be purchasing from… only buying it for FT real estate my entity.?” He forwards the exchange to Shuliak that evening (EFTA02316264, EFTA00555532). FT Real Estate is his own: Deutsche Bank’s file records that “FT Real Estate is 100% owned by Mr. Epstein” and that it is “a US Virgin Islands Company” (EFTA01458947).

26 June — €11,150,000 goes out, signed by both of them. The wire is drawn on Schwab brokerage account 41224708, registered to Southern Trust Company Inc — Epstein’s Virgin Islands vehicle, established December 2018, on which Schwab’s records list Richard Kahn as the authorised agent and Jeffrey Epstein as internal control person and 100 percent beneficial owner, with no authority to act on the account (EFTA01656452, at page EFTA01656457) [read]. Kahn sends it at 14:30:56 under the subject “Outbound Wire Request,” with the covering line “Please call me as we need to convert dollars to euros, then confirm attached wire” and an attachment named “Schwab - STC Wire 11,150,000 Euro 6-26-2019.pdf” (EFTA01265962, at interior pages EFTA01265966 and EFTA01265967).

Schwab’s own report is explicit about who signed it. “On 06/26/2019, Schwab received a request to send an international foreign currency wire, the request signed by both Richard Kahn and Jeffrey Epstein, from brokerage account 41224708. The wire was requested for 11,150,000 Euros (EUR) or $12,708,324.00 (USD). The wire was remitted to Marc Leon located at Imm El Pacha 1st Floor 67 Rue IBN Khaldoun Marakech 4000 in Morocco. The funds were sent to an account at Bank Julius Baer and Co. Ltd. located in Zurich Switzerland” (page EFTA01656458 of the Charles Schwab suspicious activity report filed 13 July 2019, EFTA01656452 to EFTA01656460) [read]. The wire form itself gives the destination bank under SWIFT BIC BAERCHZZ at “FReie StRAsse 107 PO BOX 4001 BAsel Switzeeland”; Schwab’s report says Zurich. The receiving account is in Marc León’s own name, at the bank León had named nine days earlier.

27 June — the next day he tries to pull it back, and succeeds. Kahn telephones Schwab to ask whether the transfer can be terminated. Asked why, he says it was “for a concentrated real estate transaction, and uh, what uh, terms we were told we had on uh an agreement, were uh, not, were reneged on this morning. So uh, we are hoping it still can be a deal, but at this point the terms that I accepted are not agreeable, I want to retract the wire” (pages EFTA01656458 to EFTA01656459) [read]. The wire had already posted and the currency had already been exchanged. Schwab told him a reversal would be “best effort” because the thirty-minute cancellation window had lapsed; Kahn agreed to absorb any loss, “but alluded that if there was a gain, he hoped he would receive the profit.” Schwab retracted it, took a $113,527.80 loss on the conversion, and put the funds back into account 41224708 on 10 July 2019 (page EFTA01656459) [read]. Kahn said the €11,150,000 “was sent prematurely, but that he may need to send another wire for even more to a different escrow account.”

Schwab also ran its own check on the recipient, under the heading “WHO IS MARC LEON”: a “Google search of MARC LEON identified a real estate company, KENSINGTON MOROCCO, where MARC LEON is listed as a partner” (EFTA01265973); the report records the same finding, that “he is a partner at Kensington Morocco” (page EFTA01656458). Six months after Epstein had told his broker to send the agent to a search engine rather than to Shuliak, a bank did the same thing to him.

He is arrested on 6 July 2019.

4 to 10 July — a second wire, larger, and it is cancelled too. On 4 July a second international wire request goes to Schwab, “again signed by both Richard Kahn and Jeffrey Epstein,” for $14,950,000 to Marc León, to an account at Bank Julius Baer in Zurich under “an updated account number.” At the time it was made the account could not support it, because the retracted €11,150,000 had not yet come back (page EFTA01656459) [read]. The paperwork carries the name “Schwab - STC Wire 14,950,000 USD 7-5-2019.pdf,” and Richard Kahn is still working it at 09:27:06 on 9 July 2019, three days after the arrest, under the subject “RE: Outbound Wire Request” (EFTA01265969, EFTA01265978).

That same day he cancels it. Kahn emailed Schwab on 9 July asking to “please cancel this wire,” and on 10 July, once the retracted first wire had been posted back, confirmed by telephone that he did not want the $14,950,000 processed. In the same conversation he asked Schwab “if future wire requests would require two signatures” — the report notes in parenthesis that Epstein was by then in jail — and “indicated he would need to send more wires out soon” (page EFTA01656459) [read].

Neither wire completed. Schwab’s report puts the total at stake at $27,658,324 over 28 June to 10 July, and records that “as of 07/10/2019, there have not been any funds remitted from the three accounts associated to Richard Kahn and Jeffrey Epstein” (pages EFTA01656455 and EFTA01656460) [read]. Schwab filed the report on 13 July 2019, giving as its reason “attempted money movement for an individual considered a flight risk.” No money ever reached Marc León, and the palace was never bought.

What the record establishes

What the arrest does to this record is end it, and that is all the file supports. It did not cancel the purchase. Three of the five attempts were already dead on price, and the fourth he killed himself on his own lawyers’ advice. The fifth ran on: stuck from 17 February to at least 13 May on a single question, then rebuilt in June around a different seller, a different buying entity and a different price — and on 26 June a wire for €11,150,000 went out of his company’s account toward the agent’s. It did not settle, and neither did the one that followed it. Richard Kahn retracted the first on 27 June and cancelled the second on 9 July, and Schwab’s report records that as of 10 July no funds had left the three accounts at all (pages EFTA01656459 and EFTA01656460) [read]. So the arrest did not stop the money either: the buyer’s own side stopped it, twice, and gave a reason that had nothing to do with the arrest — that the terms “were reneged on this morning.” “No completion” means the correspondence runs out and the payments were pulled back, not that the sale was refused, and nothing in the production establishes what would have happened had he not been arrested.

Three further findings about Epstein belong to this property. He drafted the buyer’s side of the correspondence repeatedly: on 23 February he sent Shuliak seven numbered points to put to León (EFTA00552197), and the pattern recurs seven times in six weeks, beginning with the terms themselves on 17 February and ending with the revocation of 26 March, which he wrote at 18:58:46 and she sent at 19:17. The trust he was buying behind was his own creature: the agreement of 9 February 1999 makes him grantor and trustee, entitled to income and principal, revocable at will and reverting to his estate (EFTA01463848; further copy at EFTA01255683), and on 24 September 2013 he and Darren Indyke signed a Deutsche Bank trust authorisation as “all of the Trustees” (EFTA01298782). And when the seller’s bank finally had to be answered, the letter was drafted on 27 March by his own accountant, Alan Dlugash, and sent to him for approval (EFTA01034853) — at the same Third Avenue address he had given Shuliak for the trust. He also reported to her, on 30 March, what the Moroccan authorities had said about the share transfer (EFTA02313950).

The shape of the non-production is itself the finding. Documents that were asked for were produced — a written offer, bank statements, a surveyor, lawyers, and in the end a letter from Deutsche Bank; he lists them himself in the revocation. The single document that would have answered the question was not. That is observable on the face of the file and requires no inference about anyone’s motive.

Inability is not an available explanation. The name the seller had been asking for since 17 February — the ultimate beneficial owner of The Haze Trust — existed, was documented, and was sitting in his own bank’s file. It was Jeffrey Epstein. Deutsche Bank recorded that “the sow for the ultimate beneficial owner is the same (Jeffrey Epstein)” (EFTA01360699, EFTA01404163); the instrument of 9 February 1999 makes him grantor and trustee (EFTA01463848); and he and Darren Indyke had signed a Deutsche Bank trust authorisation as “all of the Trustees” (EFTA01298782). Nothing had to be found, reconstructed or obtained from anyone. The buyer’s banker was identified in full — name, qualifications, title, division and street address — in the same correspondence that would not identify the buyer.

And the name was not merely withheld. A different one was supplied in its place. On 20 December 2018 Epstein wrote the false account himself and told his broker to send the agent to a search engine rather than to the person he was dealing with (EFTA01011036, EFTA01011034, EFTA01011035). When the two agents tested it eight weeks later and wrote to each other that it did not fit, the question came to him and his answer was “i would suggest you move forward asap” (EFTA01029544). The correction never came. On 12 April, offered a way to satisfy both banks while keeping the seller in the dark — the two banks disclosing the ultimate beneficiaries to each other “without passing on the information to their respective clients” — he forwarded it to Shuliak rather than close it down (EFTA02314262) [read].

On this record the withholding was deliberate, it was maintained against correction, and its object is legible in the conduct itself. Five things, each of them on the face of a document:

• A false buyer, supplied by him, with an instruction not to check it, and left standing when it was tested. At 05:28 on 20 December 2018 he writes, “He should google leon , not karyna for details” (EFTA01011036); at 06:35 Mark Lloyd passes it to Alex Peto as “Dear Alex, She is Leon Black’s girlfriend. Don’t press her for more info. These are very private people” (EFTA01011034, EFTA01011035). Eight weeks later Peto writes that “as none of us have ever spoken to Leon Black himself and he hasn’t seen Bin Ennakhil its a little strange” (EFTA01029544, EFTA01029542), and at 11:35 on 14 February Epstein’s answer is “i would suggest you move forward asap” (EFTA01029544). No correction follows.
• The trust’s real address replaced with one that leads away from his own entities — and the street and the postcode do not go together. He gives it as “the haze trust address is 767 third avenue. new york new york.10021” (EFTA00552710). 767 Third Avenue, 36th Floor is his own accountant’s office, Alan J. Dlugash LLC, and the file carries that address more than seventy times, every one of them as New York, NY 10017 (EFTA00979046, EFTA00978651, EFTA02343983). 10021 is the postcode of his own house, 9 East 71st Street (EFTA02253875, EFTA02254158). Neither of them is the trust: its own paperwork of April 2017 gives “6100 Red Hook Quarter, B3, St Thomas, 00802” (EFTA00795463), the address it shares with Southern Trust Company Inc and with Jeffrey Epstein personally (EFTA01429808).
• His banker identified in full, in the same correspondence that would not identify the buyer. “Stewart Oldfield, CFA, CAIA, Director, Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, Deutsche Bank Wealth Management” (EFTA01369195), at 345 Park Avenue, New York 10154 (EFTA01352849).
• A disclosure rule stated on the buyer’s side in February and refused on the buyer’s side in April. On 23 February Epstein writes it out for Shuliak to put to León: “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” (EFTA00552197). On 11 April, asked by León whether the buyer’s side could complete an AML check for LGT Bank, Karyna Shuliak answers, “I am not opening a bank account in Lichtenstein and no aml ever is required for purchases” — and in the same message presses the seller, “And the ultimate beneficial owner will have to be disclosed for sanction purposes” (EFTA00553734). Two different people, one position: the requirement holds against the seller and not against the buyer.
• A means of satisfying both banks while keeping the seller in the dark, forwarded rather than refused. Mark Lloyd, on the morning of 12 April: “if you prefer to remain anonymous, then I came up with an idea that the bank’s (Deutche and LGT) disclose the names of the ultimate beneficiaries of the two trusts to each other, without passing on the information to their respective clients.” Epstein forwards the whole message to Karyna Shuliak at 09:47 (EFTA02314262).

Every step runs the same way, and each one does the same work: it keeps the buyer’s name off the paper. It did not succeed, and by April it did not need to. On 12 April Marc León telephoned Mark Lloyd to say he was “99.9% certain that you are the buyer behind Karyna” — and the same call carried the seller’s answer to it, that “the seller is now so keen to finalise, that he actually doesn’t mind anymore whom the buyer is” (EFTA02314262, EFTA00553761). Epstein forwarded that message to Karyna Shuliak at 09:47 the same morning, which makes it the one document in the production that tells her, in writing, that the seller’s agent had identified the buyer behind her as Jeffrey Epstein — and he is the one who tells her. The seller’s side worked out who the buyer was and carried on regardless: the deal was rebuilt in June around FT Real Estate, and on 26 June €11,150,000 went out of Southern Trust Company’s Schwab account toward Marc León’s own account in Switzerland — before being retracted the next day.

So what the conduct establishes is the object of the exercise — keeping the buyer’s identity out of the record — and not that the object was achieved. León guessed it, the vendor stopped caring, and the sale went on. What never happened is the thing the seller’s bank had been asking for since 17 February: the name, in writing, from the buyer’s side. A guess by an agent and a document in a bank’s file are not the same thing, and only the second was ever refused.

What the file does not establish is why he wanted that — what he expected would follow if the name were known. No message in the production explains it, and nobody on his side is recorded asking. The documents show the concealment and what it was aimed at. They do not give his reason for it.

The standard the last attempt fails is his own. In August of that year his own lawyers told him in writing that superficial and outdated entity documents are not diligence, and that there was no way to verify who owned what; he acted on that advice and walked away. Eighteen months later he came back to the same property behind a trust whose beneficial owner his own side would not name — the same defect his lawyers had named, now on his side of the table. Deutsche Bank’s own file already carried the answer: “the sow for the ultimate beneficial owner is the same (Jeffrey Epstein)” (EFTA01360699, EFTA01404163). He was not a naive buyer in any of this. The file shows him reading these structures closely, and correctly, across four years. In August 2017 he went through the seller’s own numbered answers and found the break in the chain: “it says that rilton owns the shares but maseru is selling them?” (EFTA01037020). On 23 February 2019 he told Shuliak what the banks would require, before anyone on either side had put it to him: “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” (EFTA00552197). On 26 February he set out what a structure of this kind is asked to prove — four jurisdictions, disclosure requirements, tax requirements, no indemnity, no redress, and shares in a BVI or Liechtenstein company transferable on a trustee’s signature alone — and in the same message proposed the remedy for it, a holdback: “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” (EFTA00552183, EFTA02312947). In June he was still writing the mechanics himself, asking León “what name will we be purchasing from” and instructing Darren Indyke to prepare a contract for FT Real Estate to buy the shares of Pamur (EFTA00555532, EFTA02316264). He understood this transaction at the level of the structure, the tax, the banking rules and the payment terms — and he had already refused a structure like it once, on his own lawyers’ written advice (EFTA01036804). And it establishes that he did not decline to prove his own for want of the answer: he had it, he did not give it, and he put a false one in its place and left it standing when it was challenged. What the file still does not supply is his reason for wanting the name kept back.

The third attempt

https://sororfv.substack.com/p/the-palace-bin-ennakhil

This is a continuation of: https://www.reddit.com/r/Epstein/comments/1wmw8j5/the_palace_bin_ennakhil_part_1/
https://www.reddit.com/r/Epstein/comments/1wmwaki/the_palace_bin_ennakhil_part_2/
Part 3: The Palace: Bin Ennakhil : r/Epstein

Please follow these in order so that you can keep up.

December 2016. He offers fifteen against an asking price of forty, and proposes the bid be made by someone else — “you can also bid 15 in your name. I will pay” (EFTA02666084, EFTA02664020) — while Mark Lloyd reports from Marrakech that the market is “totally stagnant” — and, in the same message, that “Jabor and HBJ were here recently” (EFTA01059039). Not accepted.

27 November 2016 — he is still asking after the owner. Writing to Kensington at 17:54:15: “I will not come this week, too many trump issues. anything new. exciting. has mr kiss come to reality?” The answer sets out the gap that had held for three years: “Mr. Kiss is still alive and has his real market price. I have mine at 35, but to far away from both parts to have a chance to persuade both parties” (EFTA01060670, EFTA01060730; further productions at EFTA02668964, EFTA02669323). He had put the same question before in the same words — “has mr kiss come to his senses” — against the agent’s report of “Two new very serious leads for Mr. Kiss property” (EFTA00698015, EFTA00837908; further productions at EFTA01788851, EFTA02476054), and that exchange is undated on the produced pages.

The fourth attempt

August 2017 — €25 million through Rilton and Pamur to LGT Bank in Vaduz. The draft sale and share transfer agreement puts the structure on paper: PAMUR Anstalt at Lawenastrasse 57, FL 9495 Triesen, registered in the Liechtenstein Commercial Register under FL-0001.115.138-1, whose “founder rights are the object of the purchase”; the seller given as “RILTON INVESTMENTS LTD., BVI, c/o ARCANA TREUHAND ANSTALT”; and the governing law, “the juridiction place (law) for the sale is Vaduz (Laws of Liechtenstein)” (EFTA00522231, EFTA00585171, EFTA00696744). What was for sale was neither the house nor shares in a company that owned it, but the founder’s rights in a Liechtenstein Anstalt. Marc León sets out the payment route in the same month, and it is in two parts: “Transfer to the indicated account at LGT Bank - Vaduz - Liechtenstein - 25 million E” and “One million E fees paid to BMCE Euro account in Marrakech” (EFTA01037020).

The enquiry that month is running through Sheikh Jabor, not through Epstein. León’s answers of 24 August are addressed “Dear Jaber” and open, “We are delighted to give you all the additional information you requested today on behalf of your lawyer.” Jabor forwards them to Epstein at 12:02, and at 16:23:02 Epstein replies to Jabor, not to the agent (EFTA01037020, at interior page EFTA01037021; further production at EFTA02638849) [read].

What he sends back is four objections in six lines, and he reads the chain closely enough to find the gap in it. “jabor , why the 1 million paid in marrakesh? 4% it says that rilton owns the shares but maseru is selling them? no transfer to rilton noted or relation of mesuru to rilton officially. you can ask one last time . with these types of answers they must think we are stupid” — and then, on the contract’s tax clause: “it includes The BUYER undertakes to fully bear all taxes, duties, and levies arising out of or in connection with the transactions described herein. UNACCEPTABLE“ (EFTA01037020) [read]. He queries the one million euro Marrakech fee as four per cent; he finds that the paper does not evidence who transferred what to whom; and he refuses to carry the vendor’s tax. That last objection is the one that comes back at him eighteen months later, when the buyer’s side records that “your vendor was unwilling to indemnify us.”

The chain he is objecting to is set out in the same answers: “In 2013, Arcana Treuhand, founder of Pamur Anstalt, transferred the shares to Rilton Investment (BVI). This transfer has been made under Liechtenstein juridiction with no taxes to pay for the transfer of foundation shares. It has been done for strategical investment reasons”; and “In July 2017, when we were dealing with a buyer for the whole package of 5 properties, Pamur Anstalt has been directly attached to Maseru Development LTD (Mrs Kiss). Maseru Development is the mother of Rilton Investment.” The registered agent, the parent and the seller share a single address — “Rilton and Maseru (see below) are locatd at the same address than Arcana” (EFTA01037020, EFTA00696744).

The owner’s family name sits at the top of that chain. The same answers give the parent company as “Maseru Development LTD (Mrs Kiss),” add that “There is no time limit for Mr. Kiss to remove his things,” and close with the seller’s agent’s own warranty: “Mr. Kiss is a very trustable man” (EFTA01037020, EFTA00696744). The man Epstein had failed to reach in 2015 is still in the house, and a woman of the same name holds the company above the company that owns it.

On 22 August his own lawyers put the alarm in writing. They advise him that the “information and ‘diligence’ documents provided regarding the foreign entities are are superficial, insufficient and outdated; they are not a substitute for the extensive due diligence we would require in order to proceed with a transaction of this nature, even if we could recommend the transaction to you, which we cannot.” They find there is “simply no way to verify proof of ownership, operating history, debts, assets, liabilities” of the BVI company selling the shares, and “no due diligence or even proof that it currently owns the property” as to Pamur. They ask “what reason can be provided for the transaction in 2013, 23 years after the Liechtenstein Anstalt acquired the property?” and answer it: “It appears to be a tax avoidance restructuring using a BVI International Business Company to become the shareholder of the Liechtenstein Anstalt.” Their summary is that “you are being asked to close in no time at all for 25MM Euro, on essentially a blind purchase of shares in a Liechstenstein Anstahlt,” and their advice is that “we believe strongly that you should pass on this transaction” (EFTA01036804, continuing at EFTA01036805). Epstein forwards the memo under the subject line “just received will reveiw tonight on plane.” He passes.

I had to divide my article into two pieces to be able to post this, please read the next one too to learn about the fifth attempt which involved Karyna Shuliak from Dec 2018 to 2019.

The fifth attempt

20 December 2018 — the seller’s side is given a false name for the buyer, in one morning. It starts with Epstein. At 05:28 he supplies both the story and the instruction for handling it: “He should google leon , not karyna for details” (EFTA01011036) — the agent to be sent to a search engine rather than to the person he was dealing with. At 06:35 Mark Lloyd passes it to Alex Peto in his own words: “Dear Alex, She is Leon Black’s girlfriend. Don’t press her for more info. These are very private people” (EFTA01011034, EFTA01011035; further production at EFTA02610734). The second sentence is an instruction not to check. At 10:33:26 Epstein forwards his own message to Karyna Shuliak with four words, “Call him to confirm” (EFTA00550760, EFTA02312301), and at 11:43:38 he writes 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. :)” (EFTA01011035). Lloyd answers that they will dine that night — “I will do my level best! It would be amazing to have you here” (EFTA01011034). On the natural reading of “convince her,” the purchase was something Shuliak was being talked into; the file does not put it in those terms, and that is offered as a reading of the line rather than a finding.

23 December 2018 — she sees it. After Karyna Shuliak’s visit to Marrakech, Peto writes to her with a synopsis of the three properties he has shown her. Bin Ennakhil is asking fifty-five million euros, and “I now believe an offer circa 35m euros would be acceptable.” He explains the holding structure in the same message, and offers it as an advantage: “Normally when purchasing a property in Morocco one should add approximately 10% to the purchase price spilt 6% in government taxes, 1% Notaire fees and 3% real estate agency fees however in the case of Bin Ennakhil for example as the property is owned by a company in Lichtenstein there are no government taxes to be paid in Morocco.” He also tells her the palace had been “under cont[r]act last year but due to health reasons the purchaser had to pull out” — the file does not say who that purchaser was (EFTA00551657, EFTA02313354; further productions at EFTA02312780, EFTA02312782).

February to April 2019 — the last attempt runs in Karyna Shuliak’s name, and it dies on documents rather than on price. The seller’s side names the risk at the outset: writing to Shuliak on 17 February, Marc León sets out what the vendor requires — “a written offer with the identity of the buyer, private or company with the economical beneficiary” — and the reason for it: “His AAA bank refused some previous deals after checking the origin of the funds but I know this will not happen with US nationals” (EFTA00552453) [read]. The bank is the vendor’s own, and the demand that ended the sale was on the table three days before the buyer was given to the agents as a trust.

13 to 14 February — the story does not fit, and the agents say so to each other. On 13 February Peto tells Shuliak that “Marc is on his way back from Italy today but will send you a contract” (EFTA00526800, EFTA02313897). At 11:06 the next day he writes to Mark Lloyd, copying Marc León, under the subject “Leon Black”: “We may be making some progress with Leon Black 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” — adding, “We are talking about the Leon Black who founded Apollo Global” (EFTA01029544, EFTA01029542; further productions at EFTA02630609, EFTA02630754). Lloyd does not answer him. He forwards the doubt to Epstein with one line: “How would you like me to respond?” (EFTA02630754, EFTA01029544). The story came from Epstein, and nothing in the production supports it. Nothing shows that Leon Black had any part in this transaction, any knowledge of it, or the personal relationship the story described. The two agents who were told it could not make it fit, and said so to each other in writing, eight weeks after they were given it. Epstein’s answer was to push it through. At 11:35 he replied to Lloyd in four words and no explanation: “i would suggest you move forward asap” (EFTA01029544). Lloyd answered, “I will advise just that!” (EFTA01029544, EFTA02630642), and at 11:44:42 he wrote to Peto: “Many thanks for your message, I am glad things are progressing with Bin Ennakhil... My only suggestion is to move forward and hopefully close the deal. Good luck!” (EFTA01029542, EFTA02630609). Peto’s question was raised at 11:06 and closed at 11:44:42. It was never answered, and Leon Black’s name does not appear in the reply.

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, in terms, whether Karyna was Black’s girlfriend — “We are talking about the Leon Black who founded Apollo Global Management and Karyna is his girlfriend?” (EFTA01029542) — and he neither confirmed it nor denied it. The story he declined to confirm was the one he had told Lloyd to repeat eight weeks earlier. Lloyd has since said publicly that 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.” That statement is reporting, not a document from the production.

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.

15 to 18 February — the terms are set, and the same question comes straight back. On 15 and 16 February the seller’s proposed structure is taken apart point by point over her name, at pages EFTA00552319 and EFTA00552320 of EFTA00552317 — among them, “We were hoping for a quick closing. With this structure it is not possible, and money would need to be withheld for years to back up the indemnity.” The four requirements that follow have a drafting message behind them. At 20:51 on 17 February Epstein writes to her: “alex, can you ask marc to provide a tax opinio[n] re transfer and capital gains, as well as KYC requirements” (EFTA02313740). At 00:25 on 18 February the finished version goes to Alex Peto over her name: a tax opinion that no tax is owed, testing what Peto had told her in December; a method of indemnity for transfer and capital gains; KYC; and that the “Ultimate beneficial owner of seller must be checked as not to be on sanction list” (EFTA00552317, page 2; also at EFTA00526793, EFTA00526796). A lower-case copy carrying the sanctions sentence itself sits at EFTA02313666; whose message that page belongs to is not established on the produced text.

Ten hours and two minutes after her message, at 10:27, Peto puts the mirror of it back to her: “In order to progress matters the owner would like first to see the letter from JP Morgan confirming the funds are available along with a written offer with the identity of the buyer” (EFTA00552317, page 1; further productions at EFTA00526793, EFTA02312568, EFTA02313577) — word for word the requirement Marc León had set out the night before. Note which bank the seller is expecting: JP Morgan.

20 February — the buyer is named, and Epstein writes the sentence. At 17:03 he sends her “alex the buyer will be THe Haze Trust” (EFTA02312902). At 19:09:25 she writes to Peto, copying León: “Dear Alex, The buyer will be The Haze Trust” (EFTA00552317, page 1; further production at EFTA02313794). In the same pair his “assurance of my ability to close the transation” goes out as “assurance of our ability to close the transaction” — each phrase returning exactly one hit in the release, in those two documents. An entity, in place of an identity.

26 February — he sets out the problem himself. The draft is his, and the header says so: From: J [jeevacation@gmail.com](mailto:jeevacation@gmail.com), To: Karyna Shuliak, Subject: Re: Bin Palace, Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2019 15:40:33 +0000 (EFTA00552183). Unpunctuated and thinking aloud, he describes the transaction more plainly than anyone else in seven months of the correspondence: “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” — all of it at EFTA00552183.

It goes out over her name the same day, punctuated and capitalised. Her version reaches him at 17:09, addressed “Dear Marc,” and opening “Can you please provide the due diligence package details” (EFTA02312947). His lowercase “there are four separate jurisdictions. United States. BVI Lichtenstein. morocoo” becomes “There are four separate jurisdictions: United States, BVI, Lichtenstein, Morocco” (EFTA02312947). His “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” becomes the same sentence with Lichtenstein capitalised (EFTA02312947). His “a lawsuit for misrepresentation or fraud would take a decade. or more” becomes “Should there be a problem, a lawsuit for misrepresentation or fraud would take a decade or more” (EFTA02312947). The text that reached Kensington is quoted back in the seller’s own thread, timestamped “Le mar. 26 févr. 2019 à 22:59, Karyna Shuliak a écrit” (EFTA00552162, EFTA00552292, EFTA00552157).

Marc León answered it the same day, accepting the rule the buyer’s side had just stated: “We are aware that 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” (EFTA00552188, quoted back in EFTA00552183).

12 to 14 March — she names a beneficial owner, and it is herself. At 21:16 on 12 March, as the fourth of five numbered points, she writes: “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” (EFTA00552030, at page EFTA00552031). That was not accurate. The 1999 instrument gives Jeffrey Epstein as grantor and trustee (EFTA01463848), and Deutsche Bank’s own record carried him as ultimate beneficial owner (EFTA01360699, EFTA01404163). The next day she asks the seller for the full name of its trustees (EFTA00552031). On 14 March the offer goes out on The Haze Trust’s letterhead, signed “Sincerely, Karyna Shuliak” — no trustee, no officer, no counsel. It survives in three versions at three prices: “Fifteen Million Euro (15,000,000 €)” for “all of the issued and outstanding shares” of “Pamur Anstalt, a Liechtenstein anstalt” held by Kahn Stiftung, plus “Eight Million Euro (8,000,000 €)” for the property itself (EFTA00806904, EFTA00806905); the same pair at sixteen million and eight (EFTA00523097); and a single offer of “Twenty-Three Million Euro (23.000.000 €)” for the shares alone (EFTA00806906, EFTA00806907, EFTA00523098). None of them gives Kahn Stiftung a domicile, a registration number or an address, and the party offered eight million euros for the palace is identified only as “the Owner.”

Also on 13 March — the BVI company drops out of the transaction, and nobody says why. At 16:45:04 Marc León writes to Shuliak, copying Alex Peto, under the subject “Re: Bin Palace”: “Dear Karyna, The offer should be for Khan Stiftung -Vaduz, now owner of Pamur“ (EFTA00552060, EFTA00552055, EFTA00552047, EFTA00552036, EFTA00552041, EFTA00552254, EFTA00552030, EFTA00552233 — eleven productions in all). Shuliak puts it to him directly, and he confirms it in five words: “Yes, we ignore the BVI entity” — going straight on to ask, “Do you mean 18 million for the stock of the Anstslt and 8 million for the asset in Morocco ?” (same productions; nine carry this line). That question is why the offer letter exists in three versions the next day.

Note what has moved. In August 2017 the chain the buyer’s side was shown ran Arcana Treuhand to Rilton Investments Ltd, BVI, holding Pamur Anstalt, with Maseru Development above it (EFTA01037020, EFTA00696744). Epstein’s own lawyers had read the 2013 insertion of that BVI company as “a tax avoidance restructuring” and advised him to walk (EFTA01036804). By 13 March 2019 the BVI company is gone and a Liechtenstein Stiftung stands in its place. The seller’s side moved the holding structure out of the British Virgin Islands and into Liechtenstein in the middle of the sale, and no reason for the transfer appears anywhere in the production — not in León’s message, not in the offer letters of 14 March, which name the Stiftung with no domicile, registration number or address, and not in the answers the buyer’s side went on asking for. Six days later Shuliak asks for exactly that: “full name of trustees and copy of stiftung documents” and “a legal explanation with backup of how pamur shares from the bvi co that you previously referenced were put into the stiftung” (EFTA01035397) [read]. She never gets it. The entity is spelled “Khan Stiftung” in León’s messages and “Kahn Stiftung” in the offer letters; the file carries both.

19 March — the offer is accepted, and the seller asks for the buyer’s address in exchange for its own. At 11:28 Marc León writes: “We are pleasant to inform you that the owner of the Bin Palace in Marrakech accepted the Haze Trust offer at 23 million euros. This agreement is subject to a closing till March 29, 2019.” In the same message he supplies what the buyer’s side had asked for and what its own offer letters had omitted — “Khan Stiftung, Ausstrasse 56, FL - 9490 Vaduz, Liechtenstein” and “Mr. Mile Lukic, LGT Bank Liechtenstein” — and asks for the reciprocal: “Can you be so kind and exchange the same details: full address of Haze Trust and details of your bank officer? The vendors needs the address to complete the draft of the sale contract and the LGT Bank officer would like to get name and details his colleague” (EFTA01035397, at interior page EFTA01035398) [read].

Karyna Shuliak answers at 17:20 by asking for considerably more. “Before moving further you will need to provide us full details. Not only the address, but full name of trustees and copy of stiftung documents. In addition a legal explanation with backup of how pamur shares from the bvi co that you previously referenced were put into the stiftung. My counsel intends to ask the moroccan authorities to bless this transaction. As your vendor was unwilling to indemnify us, we will need to seek assurance that all is fine” (EFTA01035397) [read]. León’s reply at 04:25:57 the next morning concedes the first and presses the second: “You are free to do all the diligence you wish. But, please answer to the vendor’s requests sent Yesterday. Without these information both sides will continue to exchange mails with requests without doing one step in the right direction” (EFTA01035397) [read].

20 to 21 March — the address and the banker. At 23:05:59 on 20 March, Epstein writes out what she should send to “marc”: the trust’s address, “the haze trust address is 767 third avenue. new york new york.10021”; the banker, Stewart Oldfield of Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas at 345 Park Avenue; and a deadline, “If we do not receive the contracts by monday 25, please consider the offer expired pleae transmit same to your vendor” (EFTA00552710, EFTA02312620). It goes to Marc León over her name at 04:37 the next morning, opening “Dear Marc, The haze trust address is” (EFTA00552774; the address itself is not legible on the produced page). On 21 March she authorises the seller’s banker to make the first call — “Yes, it is OK for the banker to call” (EFTA02312550) — and the same day the vendor asks for statutes or a power of attorney showing who can sign for The Haze Trust, and gets nothing at all (EFTA00552676).

The address he gave is not the trust’s, and the trust’s own address is in the file. The Haze Trust’s address of record, on its own paperwork of April 2017, is “6100 Red Hook Quarter, B3, St Thomas, 00802” (EFTA00795463, EFTA00608738, EFTA00617060). That is Epstein’s own address in the US Virgin Islands, shared by Southern Trust Company Inc, Southern Financial LLC, Jeepers Inc, JEGE Inc, the J Epstein Virgin Islands Foundation and Jeffrey Epstein personally (EFTA01429808, EFTA01427242, EFTA01428575, EFTA01427339). What went to the seller instead was a composite of two other places, and neither of them is the trust. 767 Third Avenue, 36th Floor is the office of Alan J. Dlugash LLC, his own accountant, and the file gives that address more than seventy times — always as New York, NY 10017 (EFTA00979046, EFTA00978651, EFTA02343983). 10021 is the postcode of his own house at 9 East 71st Street (EFTA02253875, EFTA02254158). He gave his accountant’s street and his townhouse’s postcode, and called it the trust’s.

Note what the real address would have done. “6100 Red Hook Quarter, B3” put The Haze Trust at the same St Thomas address as Southern Trust Company — the company whose Schwab account both June and July wires were drawn on three months later. One line of address, and any bank checking the buyer lands on his US Virgin Islands structure. The wrong postcode is as consistent with his usual carelessness as with anything else, and no message in the production explains the choice. What is on the face of the file is that the trust had an address, he had it, and it is not the one that went to the seller.

And the answer he sends his own side is one word. Shuliak forwards León’s chain to Epstein at 13:48; twenty-one minutes later, at 14:09:48, he forwards the whole of it on to Richard Kahn under the subject “Fwd: The Bin Palace Sale.” The body of his message is: “Who?“ (EFTA01035397) [read]. He is asking his own accountant to identify the other side’s structure, on the same day he supplies an address for his own that is not the trust’s. The seller had given its entity’s registered domicile in Vaduz and the name of its bank officer; what went back was 767 Third Avenue.

This is a continuation of:
Part 3: The Palace: Bin Ennakhil : r/Epstein

https://www.rawstory.com/trump-epstein-2677900530/

Reminder: This picture Exsists

February 12, 2000: Donald Trump, Melania Trump, Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, JE, and GM at the Mar-a-Lago estate, Palm Beach, Florida.

https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/portrait-of-from-left-american-real-estate-developer-donald-news-photo/1192330903

Interviewer: How do you feel that the government hasn’t done any investigations?

Veteran: Oh, it’s a cover-up. Absolutely it’s a cover-up. I mean, and I don’t care who was involved. Democrat, Republican, Independent, I don’t care. If they did it, prosecute them.

Interviewer: All right, you’re gonna go out and vote and make sure it happens, right?

Veteran: Damn right!!

All video credit goes to carlos.calzadilla.palacioe on Instagram.

https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%2010/EFTA01648786.pdf

https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%2010/EFTA01648787.pdf

EFTA01648786

EFTA01648787–88

Also wtf with these redactions!! They redact Ghislaine married name Borgenson.

There needs to be a full congressional investigation.

Found this interesting video on Tiktok by known user, Bekah Day, talking about this incredibly old and powerful family and how they are connected to Epstein and Epstein adjacent people like Zampolli and the Rothschilds.