Here's what I got from pasting redacted sections into google docs with the file Kahpi mentioned
In November 2017, Indyke signed a Foundation check made payable to the
immigration lawyer in New York who was involved in one or more forced marriages arranged
among Epsteinâs victims to secure a victimâs immigration status. The checkâs memo line
references the former Russian modelâs last name.87. These payments were inconsistent with the charitableÂ
Defendants Indyke and Kahn participated with Epstein in coercing his sexÂ
trafficking victims, in at least three cases, to enter into arranged and forced marriages in order toÂ
obtain immigration status for the foreign women so that they could continue to be available toÂ
Epstein for his abuse â a doubly-deep assault on their will and dignity. Defendant KahnÂ
provided a letter of reference for at least one immigration application and tax services to theÂ
spouses, and Defendant Indyke paid the immigration lawyer who applied for citizenship for theÂ
women and threatened at least one who indicated that she would seek a divorce. They usedÂ
their professional skills and authority to carry out this abhorrent scheme.Â
79. Indyke and Kahn were, in short, the indispensable captains of Epsteinâs criminalÂ
enterprise, roles for which they were richly rewarded.
80. Defendants Kahn and Indyke controlled and directed the activities of the otherÂ
entities and personal bank accounts of Epstein accounts after they were funded. One, andÂ
frequently both, of them were officers or directors of Butterfly Trust; of companies holdingÂ
Epsteinâs real property (as laid out below); and of Financial Strategy Group, Ltd.; FinancialÂ
Trust, Inc.; FT Real Estate Inc.; Gratitude America, Inc.; Hyperion Air, Inc.; J. Epstein VirginÂ
-Islands Foundation, Inc.; Jeepers, Inc.; Mort, Inc.; Nautilus, Inc.; and Zorro DevelopmentÂ
Corporation; among others.Â
81. Along with their officer and director roles, Defendants Kahn and/or Indyke alsoÂ
had signatory authority over virtually all of the accounts held by the Epstein Enterprise entities,Â
 As of October 23, 2007, Indyke was listed as President of the Foundation. HeÂ
â also was a signatory on the Foundationâs checking accounts.
85. Between September 2015 and June 2019, Indyke signed Foundation accountÂ
checks for over $400,000 made payable to young female models and actresses, including aÂ
former Russian model who received over $380,000 through monthly payments of $8,333 made
over a period of more than three and a half years until the middle of 2019.
GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey Epstein
GVIâs Second Amended ComplaintÂ
86. In November 2017, Indyke signed a Foundation check made payable to theÂ
immigration lawyer in New York who was involved in one or more forced marriages arrangedÂ
among Epsteinâs victims to secure a victimâs immigration status. The checkâs memo lineÂ
references the former Russian modelâs last name.87. These payments were inconsistent with the charitable purpose of the FoundationÂ
and designed to serve the private benefit and criminal activities of Epstein and the EpsteinÂ
88. Earlier in 2017, Indyke signed a Foundation check for $160,000 to resolve a fineÂ
Epstein had incurred for construction on Great St. James Island that violated Virgin IslandsÂ
environmental regulations and attempted to make the payment appear to be a charitableÂ
donation. Over two years later, the Estate had to repay this amount to the Foundation afterÂ
questions were raised to Epsteinâs lawyer about the propriety of the Foundation payment.
89. With help from Indyke and Kahn, Epstein established and operated separateÂ
businesses through which he could pay victims and recruiters, and, upon information and belief,Â
which he used to maintain their immigration status.
90. JSC Interiors, LLC is a New York Limited Liability Company, the Articles ofÂ
Organization of which were filed in November 2014. The Articles list JSC, who was forced andÂ
⢠coerced to have sex with Epstein, as the companyâs sole owner. JSC was manipulated,Â
⢠exploited, and controlled by the Epstein Enterprise.Â
91. According to JSCâs operating agreement, Kahn was to be the initial Manager ofÂ
the company, with full and complete authority, power, and discretion to do all things necessaryÂ
or convenient to manage, control, and carry out the business. Kahn also had signatory authorityÂ
for JSCâs bank accounts.
GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey Epstein
GVIâs Second Amended ComplaintÂ
92. One of JSCâs bank accounts was funded entirely with money transferred fromÂ
Epsteinâs personal bank accounts.
93. JSCâs payroll was paid to two persons, one of whom was the listed sole owner.Â
Kahn gave conflicting reports to JSCâs bank about the second person on the companyâs payroll
and the reasons for its payments to her. Once, he described her as an interior designer, whichÂ
would justify the payments in light of JSCâs purported line of business, but which appears to
have been false. The other time, Kahn described this payroll recipient as a dentist, which wouldÂ
-not justify JSC Interiorsâ payments to her, but which appears to be true.
94. LSJE, LLC is a Virgin Islands Limited Liability Company that was organized onÂ
October 27, 2011. Defendants Indyke and Kahn were authorized signatories on the companyâsÂ
95. Indyke and Kahn signed company checks for combined value of almostÂ
Indyke made wire transfers from another of Epsteinâs personal accounts with aÂ
different bank totaling almost $50,000 between November 2016 and July 2019 (just beforeÂ
-Epsteinâs arrest) to women with Eastern European surnames, including one known to haveÂ
recruited young women and girls for Epstein.
GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey Epstein
GVIâs Second Amended ComplaintÂ
110. From another of Epsteinâs personal accounts with another different bank, forÂ
which Indyke had signatory authority, someone acting on Epsteinâs behalf made a total of 21Â
separate withdrawals each in the amount of $1,000 on every but one business day from April 9,Â
111. Payments from this account totaling almost $60,000 were transferred by wire toÂ
young women mostly at foreign beneficiary banks in February and March 2016.
112. Upon information and belief, based on their authority for the accounts, theirÂ
interactions with the relevant banks, and records indicating that they made or approved theÂ
transactions, these payments could have only been made with the knowledge and/or at theÂ
direction of Indyke and Kahn.
113. The sheer complexity of the infrastructure that Epstein set up and maintainedÂ
with the participation of Kahn and Indyke suggest their unlawful purpose. Based on theÂ
Governmentâs current knowledge, Epstein, with Kahn and Indyke, held and managed at least
140 different bank accounts for Epstein and Epstein-owned entities, many of which existed onlyÂ
to transfer payments to other entities and accounts.Â
114. Kahn and Indyke profited substantially from their relationship with Epstein.Â
The amount of their payments is further evidence of the illicit nature of the work theyÂ
115. From 2011 to 2019, Epstein and Epstein-owned entities paid over $16 millionÂ
- net to Defendant/Co-Executor Indyke, and over $10 million net to Defendant/Co-ExecutorÂ
â Kahn. This includes loans that are still outstanding to Indyke- and Kahn-related entities. BasedÂ
on records obtained so far, tax forms provided by Epstein entities did not report nearly the fullÂ
compensation to Indyke and Kahn.
Financial records more recently obtained show that the employee describedÂ
above whom Kahn represented to be, alternatively, an interior designer and a dentist, was also a GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey Epstein
GVIâs Second Amended ComplaintÂ
paid employee of Southern Trust Company, which did not actually or even pretend to performÂ
either interior design or dentistry services, in 2019.Â
164. During several time periods, Southern Trust Company a
For instance, Cypressâs Balance Sheet as of December 31, 2018 did not reflectÂ
any assets other than cash of $18,824. Further, Cypress reported only $301 in expenses for theÂ
year ended December 31, 2018, despite it paying $106,394.60 in Santa Fe property taxes onÂ
185. Similarly, in 2017, Cypress reported as its only asset cash in the amount ofÂ
$29,736 and expenses of $150, despite it paying $55,770.41 and $113,679.56 in Santa FeÂ
property taxes during 2017.
186. Similarly, for the tax years 2011 through 2016, Cypress did not include the valueÂ
of the New Mexico property in the total assets it reported and did not include any expensesÂ
related to the New Mexico property in the total expenses it reported to the Government.
187. Likewise, Mapleâs balance sheet as of December 31, 2018 did not reflect anyÂ
assets other than cash of $21,265. Further, Maple reported only $300 in expenses for the yearÂ
ended December 31, 2018, despite it paying $336,471.87 in New York City property taxes
-GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey Epstein
GVIâs Second Amended ComplaintÂ
188. Similarly, in 2017, Maple reported as its only asset cash in the amount ofÂ
$18,281 and expenses of $150, despite it paying $327,497.48 and $6,487.04 in New York CityÂ
property taxes during 2017.
189. Similarly, for the tax years 2011 through 2016, Maple did not include the valueÂ
Similarly, for the tax years 2011 through 2016, Maple did not include the valueÂ
of the New York property in the total assets it reported and did not include any expenses relatedÂ
to the New York property in the total expenses it reported to the Government.
190. Likewise, Laurelâs balance sheet as of December 31, 2018 did not reflect anyÂ
assets other than cash in the amount of $20,155. Further, Laurel reported only $300 in expensesÂ
for the year ended December 31, 2018, despite it paying $196,673.56 in Palm Beach propertyÂ
taxes on November 6, 2018.
191. Similarly, in 2017, Laurel reported as its only asset cash in the amount ofÂ
$37,129 and expenses of $150, despite it paying $191,941.52 in Palm Beach property taxes onÂ
192. Similarly, for the tax years 2011 through 2016, Laurel did not include the valueÂ
Defendants also attempted to conceal their criminal sex trafficking and abuseÂ
conduct by paying large sums of money to participant-witnesses, including by paying for theirÂ
attorneysâ fees and case costs in litigation related to this conduct.
204. Epstein also threatened harm to victims and helped release damaging storiesÂ
about them to damage their credibility when they tried to go public with their stories of beingÂ
trafficked and sexually abused.
205. Epstein also instructed one or more Epstein Enterprise participant-witnesses toÂ
destroy evidence relevant to ongoing court proceedings involving Defendantsâ criminal sexÂ
trafficking and abuse conduct.
206. Defendants also concealedÂ
Every time someone gives more information, I could fully kiss you. Thank you thank you THANK you.
