What companies did Jeffrey Epstein own with Israeli business partners?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive Summary
Jeffrey Epstein invested in and supplied substantial funding to companies tied to former Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak, most prominently a limited partnership called Sum (E.B.) 2015 that bought stakes in the emergency-services startup Reporty, later rebranded Carbyne; reporting indicates Epstein’s role was concealed behind Barak and others [1] [2]. Hacked emails and later reporting corroborate Epstein’s financial involvement and his facilitation of security-related deals involving Israeli technology, while sources differ on the degree of Barak’s knowledge and the timing and transparency of Epstein’s ownership stakes [3] [4].
1. Who owned what — peeling back the corporate veil around Carbyne and Sum
Reporting identifies a specific vehicle, Sum (E.B.) 2015, formed in 2015 by Ehud Barak as a limited partnership to acquire shares in Reporty, the company that later became known as Carbyne; investigators and journalists say a large portion of Sum’s funding originated from Jeffrey Epstein, effectively making Epstein a financier and business partner in the venture [1] [2]. Public accounts from 2019 already noted that Epstein invested millions into Carbyne and that Barak held a controlling stake, establishing a formal link between Epstein’s capital and Israeli high-tech ownership [5]. Corporate records cited in later reporting and leaked communications suggest Epstein’s involvement was routed through intermediaries and partnership vehicles, which obscured direct ownership and raised questions about disclosure and governance at the time [1] [3].
2. Hacked emails and the claim of concealment — what those messages show and don’t
Leaked and hacked emails attributed to Ehud Barak and associates are presented in later reporting as evidence that Epstein’s role in Carbyne and related investments was intentionally hidden, with Barak acting as a public proxy for Epstein’s financial interests; those documents are central to claims that Epstein’s name was kept off ownership records [3] [1]. The hacked material has been used to reconstruct payment flows and internal discussions dated around 2015 that mention using partnerships to mask benefactors, supporting the assertion that Epstein’s capital was funneled into Israeli startups while minimizing visible ties [3]. At the same time, some contemporaneous public reports and prior disclosures acknowledged Epstein as an investor in Carbyne as early as 2019, indicating that the concealment was incomplete or subsequently revealed, and that the narrative shifted as documents and reporting emerged [5] [2].
3. Epstein beyond Carbyne — deals, introductions, and diplomatic outreach
Beyond direct equity stakes, reporting attributes to Epstein a role in brokering security cooperation and introductions involving Israeli technology, including an arrangement to introduce Israeli emergency-services tech into Mongolia; sources claim Epstein leveraged relationships with Barak and other officials to facilitate those government-level or commercial security deals, suggesting his involvement extended past passive investment into active facilitation [4]. The described activity places Epstein in the role of connector between private Israeli startups and foreign governments or agencies, using his network to promote technology such as Carbyne’s geolocation and video-streaming tools for emergency services. These accounts, drawn from 2025 reporting, portray Epstein as a transactional actor whose influence touched both corporate and state spheres, raising questions about how private financiers shaped national security technology exports [4].
4. Conflicting timelines and how sources diverge on Barak’s knowledge
Sources vary on when and how openly Barak acknowledged Epstein’s backing. A 2019 article noted Epstein’s investments and Barak’s controlling stake in Carbyne without extensive secrecy claims, while later reporting in 2023 and 2025—relying on hacked emails and additional document review—portrays a closer, more deliberate partnership with active concealment strategies [5] [2] [3]. The divergence reflects both new evidence surfaced later and different editorial emphases: earlier pieces focused on investment facts and public company ties, whereas subsequent pieces emphasize private communications and the mechanics of hiding ownership. Analysts and journalists reading both waves of reporting must reconcile a picture of evolving disclosure, where initial public acknowledgment gave way to deeper probes that unveiled more elaborate efforts to minimize Epstein’s visible footprint [2] [3].
5. Motives, agendas and the reliability of leaks — what to watch for in the coverage
The hacked-email revelations and subsequent investigative pieces carry potential biases and motivations: sources republishing leaked communications may have political or editorial agendas that amplify links between Epstein and prominent Israeli figures, while early corporate disclosures may have downplayed unsavory backers to protect reputations and business prospects. Reporting that cites leaked documents frames Epstein as a hidden partner and underscores transparency failures, whereas earlier reporting framed the relationship as a known investment by a controversial financier. Readers should treat the juxtaposition of public filings and leaked internal messages as complementary but distinct evidentiary streams, each with strengths—legal filings and transaction records—and weaknesses—potential incompleteness or selective release—when reconstructing ownership and influence [3] [5].
6. Bottom line: the confirmed list and outstanding questions
The established, repeatedly reported link is between Jeffrey Epstein and the vehicle Sum (E.B.) 2015, which invested in Reporty/Carbyne, with Ehud Barak implicated as a controlling public partner in that arrangement; later reports also attribute to Epstein a role in brokering security introductions that used those corporate ties [1] [2] [4]. Open questions remain about the full scope of companies Epstein owned or financed with Israeli partners beyond Carbyne, the exact mechanics of concealment, and the breadth of governmental engagements facilitated through those investments—issues that hinge on further document releases and formal corporate or judicial inquiries to provide definitive public records [3] [1].