Epstein files: 7 confirmed records and what they establish
The Epstein record includes a non-prosecution agreement, criminal charges, Ghislaine Maxwell's conviction, civil settlements, unsealed court filings, a disclosure law, and government document releases. These records have different legal meanings. Being named in a file does not establish wrongdoing, and an allegation in a released document is not a verdict.
By The Black Book Audit editorial · Reviewed
The short list
- The 2007 non-prosecution agreement and 2008 guilty plea — Federal prosecutors signed a non-prosecution agreement; Epstein later pleaded guilty to Florida state charges.
- The 2019 federal sex-trafficking indictment — Federal prosecutors charged Epstein with sex trafficking of minors and conspiracy; the case ended without a trial.
- Ghislaine Maxwell's conviction and twenty-year sentence — A federal jury convicted Maxwell in December 2021; she received a twenty-year sentence in June 2022.
- JPMorgan's two civil settlements — JPMorgan agreed to a $290 million victim settlement and a separate $75 million U.S. Virgin Islands settlement.
- Giuffre v. Maxwell: a civil case, not a client list — Giuffre v. Maxwell was civil litigation; its docket is not a judicial list of offenders.
- The Epstein Files Transparency Act — The Epstein Files Transparency Act became Public Law 119-38 on November 19, 2025.
- The January 2026 DOJ release and its reliability warning — DOJ announced nearly 3.5 million pages in combined releases and warned that the production could contain false submissions.
What this list covers
This is a guide to seven documented records and proceedings, including material that predates the recent DOJ releases. It is not a list of alleged clients, a complete review of the files, or a finding about every person mentioned. Grades apply to the existence and stated outcome of each record.
The documented items below link to supporting coverage and the records used to check each claim. Leads that still need review appear separately with no evidence grade.
Prepared from the linked records and reporting. The grading method explains the difference between a documented event, an allegation, and a conclusion.
A person's appearance in a record does not establish participation in abuse. Settlements, allegations, and convictions have different legal meanings.
The records at a glance
Select a case for its sources and limits. The order follows the dates of the programs or records described.
Swipe the table sideways to read each claim →
| Case or record | Date | What is established |
|---|---|---|
| The 2007 non-prosecution agreement and 2008 guilty plea | 2007–2008 | FACT Federal prosecutors signed a non-prosecution agreement; Epstein later pleaded guilty to Florida state charges. |
| The 2019 federal sex-trafficking indictment | July–August 2019 | FACT Federal prosecutors charged Epstein with sex trafficking of minors and conspiracy; the case ended without a trial. |
| Ghislaine Maxwell's conviction and twenty-year sentence | 2021–2022 | FACT A federal jury convicted Maxwell in December 2021; she received a twenty-year sentence in June 2022. |
| JPMorgan's two civil settlements | 2023 | FACT JPMorgan agreed to a $290 million victim settlement and a separate $75 million U.S. Virgin Islands settlement. |
| Giuffre v. Maxwell: a civil case, not a client list | 2015 case; January 2024 releases | FACT Giuffre v. Maxwell was civil litigation; its docket is not a judicial list of offenders. |
| The Epstein Files Transparency Act | November 19, 2025 | FACT The Epstein Files Transparency Act became Public Law 119-38 on November 19, 2025. |
| The January 2026 DOJ release and its reliability warning | January 30, 2026 | FACT DOJ announced nearly 3.5 million pages in combined releases and warned that the production could contain false submissions. |
The 2007 non-prosecution agreement and 2008 guilty plea
Federal prosecutors signed a non-prosecution agreement; Epstein later pleaded guilty to Florida state charges.
The Justice Department's review records a federal non-prosecution agreement signed on September 24, 2007. Epstein pleaded guilty in Florida state court on June 30, 2008 and received consecutive twelve- and six-month terms. The review also found that victims were not informed or consulted before the agreement was signed.
These are separate from the later federal sex-trafficking charges. The review criticized Alexander Acosta's judgment while finding no professional misconduct by the five subjects it investigated. Both the criticism and the finding belong in an accurate account of the deal.
Limit of the evidence: A finding of poor judgment is not a criminal conviction of the prosecutors involved.
Read our guide to Julie K. Brown's reporting →The 2019 federal sex-trafficking indictment
Federal prosecutors charged Epstein with sex trafficking of minors and conspiracy; the case ended without a trial.
On July 8, 2019, federal prosecutors in New York announced charges of sex trafficking of minors and conspiracy to commit that offense. The indictment alleged conduct between 2002 and 2005. The charging announcement expressly described the charges as accusations, not findings of guilt.
The court formally dismissed the case on August 29, 2019, after Epstein's death. The fact that an indictment was filed is established; the allegations in that indictment were not resolved by a trial verdict. That distinction remains necessary when the charging document appears inside a later release.
Limit of the evidence: The 2019 indictment was not a 2019 conviction. Epstein's earlier state guilty plea is a separate legal event.
Read the Epstein records timeline →Ghislaine Maxwell's conviction and twenty-year sentence
A federal jury convicted Maxwell in December 2021; she received a twenty-year sentence in June 2022.
A federal jury found Ghislaine Maxwell guilty on December 29, 2021 of five offenses, including sex trafficking of a minor and related conspiracy charges. On June 28, 2022, Judge Alison Nathan sentenced her to twenty years in prison. Unlike an untested tip or a name in a contact book, this is a criminal adjudication.
The Justice Department's sentencing announcement identifies the offenses and describes the trial evidence. The conviction establishes Maxwell's criminal responsibility for the conduct at issue in that case. It does not supply a verdict about other people mentioned elsewhere in the files.
Limit of the evidence: The verdict concerns Maxwell. It cannot be transferred to another person through association or shared appearances in records.
Read the criminal-case and disclosure record →JPMorgan's two civil settlements
JPMorgan agreed to a $290 million victim settlement and a separate $75 million U.S. Virgin Islands settlement.
JPMorgan agreed to pay $290 million to settle claims brought by Epstein victims. Judge Jed Rakoff approved that settlement on November 9, 2023. The bank also reached a separate $75 million settlement with the U.S. Virgin Islands in September 2023.
These amounts concern two different civil cases. They resolved claims brought by different parties. The victim settlement included no admission of wrongdoing.
The documented settlements establish the amounts, parties, and resolution of litigation. They are not criminal convictions and do not make every allegation in the underlying complaints a judicial finding.
Limit of the evidence: Settled allegations and proven criminal conduct must remain separate categories.
- JPMorgan Chase: 2023 audited financial statements, Epstein litigation ↗
- JPMorgan Chase: third-quarter 2023 Form 10-Q, Epstein litigation ↗
- Reuters: court approval of the $290 million settlement ↗
- Associated Press / PBS: separate $75 million USVI settlement ↗
Giuffre v. Maxwell: a civil case, not a client list
Giuffre v. Maxwell was civil litigation; its docket is not a judicial list of offenders.
The January 2024 unsealing involved documents from Virginia Giuffre's civil case against Ghislaine Maxwell. That case was filed in 2015 and ended in 2017, while disputes about public access continued afterward. A civil record can contain testimony, exhibits, disputed allegations, and procedural arguments.
Its release makes material available for scrutiny; it does not turn each statement into a court finding. This is why a list of names extracted from the filings is a poor substitute for reading the document in which each name appears. The case and its releases belong in the chronology, with their legal context intact.
Limit of the evidence: A name in testimony or an exhibit does not identify an offender. Publication and adjudication are different events.
Read the release chronology →The Epstein Files Transparency Act
The Epstein Files Transparency Act became Public Law 119-38 on November 19, 2025.
The official law record identifies November 19, 2025 as the approval date of the Epstein Files Transparency Act. Its purpose is to require the attorney general to release Justice Department documents and records relating to Epstein. The published law, rather than a politician's description of it, is the starting point for checking disclosure duties and exceptions.
The passage of a transparency law is an established legislative event. Whether a particular withholding or redaction meets that law requires a separate examination of the statutory text, the document, and any relevant court decision.
Limit of the evidence: The law's existence does not establish that every release is complete or that every withheld record was unlawfully withheld.
Read the disclosure-law investigation →The January 2026 DOJ release and its reliability warning
DOJ announced nearly 3.5 million pages in combined releases and warned that the production could contain false submissions.
On January 30, 2026, the Justice Department announced more than three million additional pages, bringing the combined production to nearly 3.5 million pages. It also reported more than 2,000 videos and 180,000 images. These are the department's release figures, not a count independently repeated here.
The same announcement warned that responsive submissions to the FBI could include fake or falsely submitted material. A government-hosted document can therefore prove that a submission was received without proving its contents. The DOJ library also warns that some formats, including handwriting, may not be reliably searchable.
Limit of the evidence: A keyword count is not a count of crimes, and a failed search is not proof that a document or name is absent.
Read the document-release investigation →What we are still reviewing
These are research leads, not graded findings. Adding one requires source review and an editorial decision.
- OPEN · NOT GRADED
Document-level release comparison
Track additions and removals against specific document identifiers. A release announcement is not an independent completeness audit.
Research starting point ↗ - OPEN · NOT GRADED
Financial records and unresolved questions
Separate bank records, claims in litigation, and findings in judgments before adding further names or amounts.
Research starting point ↗
What these records can and cannot tell you
Does being named in the Epstein files prove wrongdoing?
No. A person may appear in a contact record, photograph, news clipping, witness statement, or allegation. The document type and the specific evidence matter. A mention is not a conviction.
Are all claims in the DOJ files verified?
No. DOJ's January 2026 announcement expressly warned that the production could include fake or falsely submitted material because responsive submissions to the FBI were included.
What is confirmed in this guide?
The existence and stated outcomes of the listed records: an agreement and state plea, federal charges, Maxwell's conviction, civil settlements, civil-case disclosures, a law, and a document release. Each item states the limits of what it proves.
Where can I read the original files?
The DOJ Epstein Library links its disclosures and the House committee's releases. Court dockets and the official law record provide separate context. This page links the relevant source beside each entry.