Epstein and Europe's banks: six relationships that…

Six European banks appear in the public records reviewed for this investigation. But they do not appear in the same capacity or with the same standard of proof. Deutsche Bank provided banking services directly to Jeffrey Epstein. HSBC and BNP Paribas held accounts in his name under different circumstances. UBS and Barclays are documented mainly through their relationships with Ghislaine Maxwell. Edmond de Rothschild Holding appears as the principal behind an engagement awarded to Southern Trust, a company chaired by Epstein. Reading these records together can show how risk travels. Merging them into a single accusation would distort the sources. NYDFS, Deutsche Bank order of 6 July 2020 · Bloomberg, 21 November 2025 · Le Monde, 21 February 2026 · Reuters, 8 February 2026 · Upper Tribunal, 26 June 2025 · agreement dated 5 October 2015, EFTA00587465

The distinction prevents two errors. The first would be to treat every appearance in a file as proof of an account. The second would be to turn an account or transfer into automatic proof of an offence. A banking record first establishes a relationship, date or transaction. Separate evidence is needed to characterise its purpose, economic beneficiary or possible criminal nature.

This investigation complements our series on Epstein’s money. The mechanisms already established at Deutsche Bank are detailed in a separate investigation. The Staley case and Maxwell’s Barclays account are covered in our dedicated analysis. The purpose here is comparative: which relationship does each source establish, and where does the evidence stop?

The categories are descriptive. They do not rank moral gravity or legal responsibility. Each record retains its own chain of evidence.

Edmond de Rothschild: a documented paid engagement

An agreement dated 5 October 2015 states that Southern Trust Company had been collaborating with Ariane de Rothschild, on behalf of Edmond de Rothschild Holding, on outstanding matters between the holding company and the United States. It provides for the Rothschild Group to pay $25 million to Southern Trust no later than three days after Edmond de Rothschild Holding made a payment to the United States. The document identifies Epstein as Southern Trust’s president and says the work was to continue as agreed from time to time between Epstein and Ariane de Rothschild. EFTA00587465, pages 1 and 2, indexed copy from FBI VOL00009

A transaction table published among the US records then lists two payments to Southern Trust: $10 million on 17 December 2015, with Edmond de Rothschild (Suisse) SA as the originator, then $14,999,980 on 21 December, with Benjamin Edmond de Rothschild as the originator. The total is $24,999,980. The two entries do not have the same payer, and the record does not explain why the combined amount is twenty dollars below the contractual fee. Transaction table, first page of EFTA00027019 PDF

On 18 December 2015, the US Department of Justice announced that Edmond de Rothschild (Suisse) SA and Edmond de Rothschild (Lugano) SA would pay $45.245 million under the Swiss Bank Program. The release concerns undeclared US accounts and potential tax offences. It does not concern Epstein’s crimes. The proximity of the dates to the agreement and payments is documented; on its own, it does not establish corruption, intervention with the department or an unlawful quid pro quo. DOJ, 18 December 2015 · EFTA00587465

The rigorous formulation is therefore narrow: the records establish an engagement of Southern Trust connected to the holding company’s US matters and payments almost equal to the stipulated fee. By themselves, they do not establish that Epstein held an account at Edmond de Rothschild, had power over the DOJ resolution or caused the penalty to change.

HSBC: a French closure, three Swiss accounts without a timeline

A letter dated 21 December 2007, obtained by Bloomberg, told Epstein that HSBC did not intend to maintain the relationship and was closing his Paris account at the bank’s request. The letter gives no reason. Bloomberg reports, based on two people familiar with the matter, that compliance staff had flagged suspicious transactions. That explanation is attributed to the anonymous sources; it does not appear in the letter itself. The closure became effective on 21 January 2008, according to an email from Epstein’s lawyer also published by Bloomberg. Bloomberg, 21 November 2025

That closure does not end the HSBC record. A suspicious activity report filed by JPMorgan after Epstein’s death and later unsealed lists him with three accounts at HSBC’s Swiss private bank. Reuters notes that the record provides neither amounts nor details of the relationship. It therefore does not show when the accounts were opened or closed, or whether they remained active after the Paris closure. A JPMorgan report establishes information sent to the US Treasury, not a judicial finding about HSBC. Reuters, 4 November 2025

The material gap is chronological: a French entity closed a relationship before Epstein’s 2008 conviction, while Swiss accounts appear in a later record that gives no dates. Nothing in the public sources reviewed establishes whether the French and Swiss teams shared the same file at the time, or whether they did not.

BNP Paribas: a Fortis retail account inherited in an acquisition

The BNP Paribas case begins at another institution. Le Monde reports that Fortis France opened a retail current account in Epstein’s name in February 2008. BNP Paribas subsequently inherited it when it acquired Fortis, along with thousands of other accounts. Records reviewed by the newspaper also show a savings account and bank card. BNP Paribas told Le Monde that this was not a private banking relationship and that the bank closed the account on its own initiative, for compliance reasons, in mid-2018. Le Monde, 21 February 2026

The opening preceded Epstein’s Florida conviction in June 2008 by several months. The Fortis acquisition therefore creates a problem different from knowingly accepting a new client who had already been convicted: it raises the question of reviews conducted when a portfolio is integrated and when public risk changes. The published records do not establish that the BNP Paribas account funded Epstein’s crimes. Le Monde says that use remains unknown. Le Monde, 21 February 2026 · DOJ notification of the 30 June 2008 plea and sentence, EFTA00013888

UBS: the client rejected, the linked person retained

The documents analysed by Reuters describe two separate decisions. UBS provided Epstein with a credit card in 2014 after his JPMorgan relationship ended. According to an email from his accountant, the bank closed it in September that year because of “reputational risk”. At the same time, UBS opened personal and business accounts for Ghislaine Maxwell in 2014 and managed as much as $19 million for her in later years. The account holder, products and duration were therefore different. Reuters, 8 February 2026

Reuters saw records showing that UBS conducted due diligence before Maxwell’s accounts moved from JPMorgan, but it could not establish the details. The news agency said there was no evidence of wrongdoing by UBS or its advisers. It nevertheless documented a question of scope: JPMorgan had classified Maxwell as a high risk client in 2011 because of her links to Epstein, while UBS rejected Epstein for reputational risk but maintained its relationship with Maxwell. Reuters, 8 February 2026

On 22 July 2019, sixteen days after Epstein’s arrest, UBS moved $130,000 from Maxwell’s savings account to her current account to help pay an American Express bill, according to the documents. On 16 August, the bank received a grand jury subpoena concerning Maxwell and provided the FBI with wire transfer information. Reuters could not determine whether or when UBS closed her accounts. Executing a transaction after an arrest or complying with a subpoena does not itself prove a breach; the dates make a complete timeline of monitoring and exit decisions necessary. Reuters, 8 February 2026

Vigilance does not stop at the account holder's name. It also covers the relationship's origin, linked people, entities, service delivered and changes in public context.

Deutsche Bank and Barclays: two records already established

Deutsche Bank is the most clearly regulated case in this comparison. The New York financial regulator’s order describes a direct relationship with Epstein, more than forty accounts connected to him and his entities, known risks at entry and repeated monitoring failures. The relationship, its exceptions and its exit are detailed in our Deutsche Bank investigation and the second instalment of our banking series. NYDFS, order of 6 July 2020, pages 6 to 24

Barclays must remain on two planes. In 2025, the UK Upper Tribunal found that Jes Staley had knowingly approved two misleading statements about his relationship with Epstein. Separately, documents analysed by Reuters indicate that Maxwell held $2.4 million at Barclays at the end of 2018 and that more than $600,000 moved from that account to UBS in the three weeks after Epstein’s arrest. Neither record establishes a Barclays account in Epstein’s name. The full chain is set out in our Barclays investigation. Upper Tribunal, paragraphs 496 to 503 · Reuters, 27 March 2026

Public questions for the holders of the records

The sources support precise questions without presuming their answers. The institutions and people named below may hold some or all of the information. Banking secrecy, an investigation, data protection or other obligations may limit publication. A lack of publication would confirm no hypothesis.

Who approved the Southern Trust engagement, and on the basis of which checks? Edmond de Rothschild Holding, its 2015 governance bodies and Ariane de Rothschild could publish a redacted chronology of the decision, requested work, checks performed and deliverables received. The agreement establishes the fee and a general purpose, not the concrete substance of the service. EFTA00587465
Why were the payments split between Edmond de Rothschild (Suisse) SA and Benjamin Edmond de Rothschild? Records held by the bank, holding company and Benjamin de Rothschild’s estate could document the accounting and contractual basis for that division. The table establishes two originators; it does not give the reason. EFTA00027019, first page
When were the three HSBC Switzerland accounts opened and closed? HSBC Private Bank (Suisse) and group archives could provide a redacted timeline. HSBC France could say whether the 2007 Paris closure decision and due diligence file were shared with the Swiss entity. Reuters documents the accounts, not their dates. Reuters, 4 November 2025 · Bloomberg, 21 November 2025
When did BNP Paribas reassess the account inherited from Fortis? BNP Paribas and the Fortis integration archives could specify the reviews conducted after the acquisition, after the June 2008 conviction and before the 2018 closure, together with the exact blocking date. Those answers could be given without revealing the existence or absence of a confidential report. Le Monde, 21 February 2026
Which perimeter did UBS use to assess Maxwell? UBS and its compliance archives could explain which Epstein links, entities and beneficial owners were examined in 2014 and reassessed after July 2019. Reuters saw evidence that checks existed but could not learn their details. Reuters, 8 February 2026
On which dates were transfer capabilities and Maxwell’s UBS accounts restricted or closed? UBS could publish a redacted timeline of decisions taken before and after the 16 August 2019 subpoena. The FBI and federal prosecutors could index any releasable letters and records that establish the rest of that chronology. Reuters, 8 February 2026
Have European regulators reconstructed the cross-border flow of information? The ACPR, FINMA, FCA and other competent authorities could publish, within legal limits, the dates and scope of their reviews and the expectations applicable to information sharing between entities in the same group. The question concerns supervisory method, not disclosure of an individual report.
Can the US Department of Justice connect every documentary claim to a stable record? A public index linking agreements, transaction tables, emails and statements to their full identifiers would allow further checking of press investigations without republishing personal information about victims or third parties.

Method: identify each relationship and its evidence

These six records do not describe a single European “Epstein bank”. They show an architecture that is harder to control: a direct client can leave one institution and reappear elsewhere; an account can be inherited in an acquisition; a linked person can retain a separate banking relationship; a company controlled by the client can become a service provider to a financial group; and a senior executive can become the principal source for a review of his own conduct.

The strongest conclusion is therefore not a ranking of banks. It is a requirement of method: identify the exact account holder, legal entity, product, period, payment purpose and source that establishes each point. Whenever one is missing, the question should remain open and clearly name who may be able to answer it.

Lire la version française.

Sources

Limitations

Some facts concerning HSBC, BNP Paribas, UBS and Barclays rely on journalistic analysis of documents that have not all been published in a stable, indexed form. Those facts are attributed to the news organisations that established them.
EFTA00587465 was reviewed through an indexed copy with automated text extraction. EFTA00027019 is a public copy from a US case file. Their presence in the files does not by itself provide a legal characterisation of the service or payments.
Edmond de Rothschild’s tax resolution with the DOJ is separate from Epstein’s crimes. The proximity of dates and the agreement’s wording justify a question about the engagement; they do not prove corruption, influence or a reduced penalty.
An account, card, transfer or relationship with a linked person does not itself prove an offence by the bank. This article does not characterise any funds as criminal without specific evidence.
Maxwell’s accounts are legally distinct from Epstein’s accounts. Their existence does not permit the account holder’s name to be changed or the funds to be automatically attributed to Epstein.
The detailed reasons for the HSBC Paris closure rely on two anonymous sources cited by Bloomberg. The closure letter itself gives no reason.
Other institutions appear in political lists, emails or press investigations. They are not added to this comparison because the public evidence reviewed is insufficient to establish a banking or contractual relationship of a comparable nature.
The source record is current to 9 August 2026. The absence of a public document does not prove the absence of an internal review, confidential report or investigation.