What is the current status of Paolo Zampolli's modeling agency after the Epstein scandal?

1. What people claim about Zampolli and his agency — a messy mix of history and silence

The collected analyses record claims that Paolo Zampolli founded ID Model Management and later moved into real estate and other business roles, including a prominent diplomatic appointment in 2025, but none of the provided sources explicitly link the agency’s operational fate to the Epstein scandal. The Wikipedia and Haute Living summaries describe Zampolli’s career arc and leadership roles without noting any termination, restructuring, or legal action against ID Model Management in the wake of Epstein-related reporting ^{[1] [2] [3]}. Reporting and commentary about Epstein and the modeling world document overlapping networks and abuse patterns, and some analysts assert that the modeling industry was complicit in facilitating exploitation; however, those pieces do not single out ID Model Management’s current status or identify specific legal consequences for Zampolli tied to Epstein’s crimes ^{[5] [6]}.

2. What the factual record in the provided sources actually shows — absence of direct evidence

The factual material in the supplied analyses consistently shows absence of direct documentation connecting the Epstein scandal to a definitive change in ID Model Management’s status. The Wikipedia entry and profile pieces focus on Zampolli’s biography, noting his move from fashion into real estate and his later public roles, including a March 2025 diplomatic post, without reporting any agency shutdown or legal proceedings related to Epstein ^{[1] [2] [3]}. Separate fact-check and oversight-oriented documents about Epstein map a broader network of associates and models’ testimonials, but the texts included here do not contain testimony or records implicating Zampolli’s agency in criminal proceedings or civil judgments resulting from the Epstein investigations ^{[4] [6]}.

3. Broader industry context — why silence doesn’t equal innocence, but it also isn’t proof of guilt

Contextual analyses argue that modeling industry practices—recruitment from Eastern Europe and South America, visa facilitation, and upfront fees—created vulnerabilities that Epstein and others exploited, and commentators assert the industry functioned as part of a larger system that enabled abuse. These broader claims suggest plausible pathways by which agencies could have been affected by scandal revelations, including reputational damage or informal closure, yet the sources given do not provide documented linkage between those systemic critiques and ID Model Management’s present operations ^[5]. The distinction matters: systemic criticism of an industry speaks to patterns and risks, whereas legal or corporate outcomes require documented actions such as filings, lawsuits, or verified closures, none of which appear in the supplied analyses.

4. Conflicting narratives and missing pieces — what the sources omit and why it matters

The supplied materials reveal notable omissions: there is no contemporaneous investigative report, court record, or public statement tied to Zampolli or ID Model Management describing post-Epstein consequences. Profiles emphasize career transitions and current roles but stop short of addressing allegations or official inquiries, which leaves a factual vacuum that can breed speculation. The absence of sourced allegations in these documents may reflect editorial focus, lack of available public records in the reviewed corpus, or that any potential investigations did not generate coverage captured here. For readers, the key takeaway is that absence of reporting in these sources is not confirmation of no wrongdoing, nor does it confirm continued normal operation ^{[1] [2] [3] [5]}.

5. Where further verification would come from — the documentary evidence that resolves the question

To conclusively determine ID Model Management’s current status after the Epstein scandal requires primary documentary evidence not present in the supplied analyses: business registrations, corporate filings, court dockets, civil lawsuits, victim testimony mentioning the agency, or press investigations naming ID Model Management in direct connection to Epstein. Oversight committee releases, law enforcement records, or investigative journalism pieces that name Zampolli and his agency in a post-2019 accountability context would be decisive; the provided documents include oversight-oriented material about Epstein’s network broadly but do not contain such agency-specific evidence ^{[6] [4]}. Without those documents, factual claims about the agency’s current operational state remain unverified by the corpus at hand.

6. Bottom line and recommended next steps for a definitive answer

Based on the materials provided, the current operational status of Paolo Zampolli’s ID Model Management after the Epstein scandal is undocumented: available biographical pieces and industry critiques do not confirm closure, prosecution, or formal sanctions tied to Epstein. For a definitive answer, consult up-to-date corporate registries, court records, major investigative reports, and direct statements from Zampolli or ID Model Management; none of these appear in the supplied sources, so any definitive public claim would require new sourcing beyond the analyses provided ^{[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]}.