Epstein Secrets

ut the complained-of conduct.” Special Purpose Accounts Receivable Co-op Corp. v. Prime One Capital Co., .L.L.C, 2007 WL 4482611 (S.D. Fla. 2007) (Marra, J.). Obtaining information about the whereabouts of Epstein’s assets is particularly difficult, given his financial sophistication in structurin

ction to prevent “transfer[ring] assets abroad” and distinguishing De Beers). In one final attempt to obscure this Court’s power, Epstein cites Lawhon v. Mason, 611 So.2d 1367, 1368 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993), as rejecting plaintiff’s motion to prohibit a defendant from transferring assets. Mem. in Opp.

2 of 24 Jane Doe v. Epstein Case No. 08-CV-80893-Marra/Johnson Epstein's Memorandum of Law in Oppositio

er, in her First Amended Complaint (DE #38), Jane Doe does not seek an injunction nor does she assert a claim under Fla. Stat. §726.101 et seq. See Lawhon v. Mason, 611 So. 2d 1367, 1368 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) (holding that a party must ''file suit under the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act" to enjoin frau

FFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. CASE NO.: 08-cv-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/JOFINSON CA

leges the defendant may be dissipating assets; a judgment for money damages is adequate and injunctive relief is improper) (citations omitted). The Lawhon court also noted that the order was similar to a pit-judgment writ of attachment. 611 So. 2d at 1368. "A writ of attachment cannot issue unless the