Epstein Secrets

t and were owed a judgement of approximately $23 million. The fraudulent court order also falsely stated that the defendant had transferred funds to the Cayman Islands in order to avoid paying the judgement. 27. Defendant ROTHSTEIN and other co-conspirators falsely advised the clients on several occasions that i

ertain of the named Defendants, which scheme directly impacted EPSTEIN as a named defendant in the Civil Actions. 19. Miami attorney and developer, Alan Sakowitz, was quoted in a November 2009 article as saying that he had met with ROTHSTEIN as a potential investor in August of 2009, but became suspicious. H

t and were owed a judgement of approximately $23 million. The fraudulent court order also falsely stated that the defendant had transferred funds to the Cayman Islands in order to avoid paying the judgement. 27. Defendant ROTHSTEIN and other co-conspirators falsely advised the clients on several occasions that i

ertain of the named Defendants, which scheme directly impacted EPSTEIN as a named defendant in the Civil Actions. 19. Miami attorney and developer, Alan Sakowitz, was quoted in a November 2009 article as saying that he had met with ROTHSTEIN as a potential investor in August of 2009, but became suspicious. H

t and were owed a judgement of approximately S23 million. The fraudulent court order also falsely stated that the defendant had transferred funds to the Cayman Islands in order to avoid paying the judgement. 27. Defendant ROTHSTEIN and other co-conspirators falsely advised the dEents on NJ P several occasions t

ertain of the named Defendants, which scheme directly impacted EPSTEIN as a named defendant in the Civil Actions. 19. Miami attorney and developer, Alan Sakowitz, was quoted in a November 2009 article as saying that he had met with ROTHSTEIN as a potential investor in August of 2009, but became suspicious. H

t and were owed a judgement of approximately $23 million. The fraudulent court order also falsely stated that the defendant had transferred funds to the Cayman Islands in order to avoid paying the judgement 27. Defendant ROTHSTEIN and other co-conspirators falsely advised the clients on several occasions that in

ertain of the named Defendants, which scheme directly impacted EPSTEIN as a named defendant in the Civil Actions, 19. Miami attorney and developer, Alan Sakowitz, was quoted in a November 2009. article as saying that he had met with, ROTHSTEIN as a potential investor in August of 2009, but became suspicious.

t and were owed a judgement of approximately $23 million. The fraudulent court order also falsely stated that the defendant had transferred funds to the Cayman Islands in order to avoid paying the judgement. 27. Defendant ROTHSTEIN and other co-conspirators falsely advised the clients on several occasions that i

ertain of the named Defendants, which scheme directly impacted EPSTEIN as a named defendant in the Civil Actions. 19. Miami attorney and developer, Alan Sakowitz, was quoted in a November 2009 article as saying that he had met with,ROTHSTEIN as a potential investor in August.of 2009, but became suspicious. H