What specific categories of documents did JPMorgan and Deutsche Bank produce in response to the November 2025 subpoenas?

1. What the subpoenas asked for — a focus on “financial records” and account materials

The Oversight Committee’s cover letters and subpoenas framed the request centrally as financial and banking records related to Epstein, explicitly referencing account information, transactions, and materials tied to his JPMorgan and Deutsche Bank relationships — language that appears in the committee’s transmittals to both institutions ^{[2] [3]}. The Deutsche Bank subpoena, as reported, concentrated on records for accounts maintained after 2013 when Deutsche became Epstein’s primary bank; the JPMorgan subpoena similarly sought documents tied to known accounts and internal files such as references to “Project Jeep” that the committee believes relate to Epstein’s JPMorgan activity ^{[4] [3]}.

2. What the banks turned over — “approximately 5,000 documents” of bank and financial records

Oversight’s Republican majority said it had received “approximately 5,000 documents” in response to the subpoenas to JPMorgan and Deutsche Bank, and contemporaneous reporting describes what was handed over in the aggregate as records and documents related to Epstein’s banking activity rather than a categorized, public index of discrete document types ^[1]. Multiple outlets that covered the committee action reiterate that the materials are financial records—account statements, transactional data, and internal bank documents are the implied contents of that description—but the publicly released summaries stop short of itemizing each category by bank ^{[5] [6]}.

3. Specific items cited in reporting — emails, account records, and internal project files

Local and national coverage flag a few more specific strands within the production: reporting notes that JPMorgan’s internal review produced emails between Epstein and Jes Staley, a former JPMorgan private banking executive, which the committee sought to obtain ^[4]. The subpoena language and reporting also reference account‑level materials and documents connected to “Project Jeep” — a name that appears in committee requests tied to JPMorgan account inquiries — and Deutsche Bank’s records for accounts from roughly 2013 through late 2018 ^{[3] [4]}.

4. What is not publicly detailed — limitations in transparency about the document breakdown

No source in the public reporting provides a granular, bank‑by‑bank breakdown listing “here are the account statements, here are SARs, here are wire tables,” so conclusions about precise categories beyond the broad label of financial/banking records rely on inference from subpoena language and press accounts; the Oversight Committee statement and media stories describe volume and general subject matter but not a detailed inventory ^{[1] [2] [5]}. The committee had already obtained other estate documents (the “birthday book,” Epstein’s will, a non‑prosecution agreement and contact books) which informed follow‑on requests to the banks, but those estate materials are distinct from what the banks provided ^[3].

5. Political context and alternative readings — motive, settlements, and transparency law

The document production unfolded against a charged backdrop: Congressional Republicans pursuing the Oversight probe, recent settlements by both banks with Epstein victims (JPMorgan’s $290 million settlement and Deutsche Bank’s $75 million settlement are part of the public record), and the parallel legislative push (the Epstein Files Transparency Act) to force further disclosure — all of which color how the committee frames the significance of the records and what it will seek next ^{[7] [8] [4]}. Journalistic sources and committee statements therefore present the banks’ productions as mobilizing evidence about account management and possible lapses in monitoring, while the banks and some commentators emphasize settlements and limited public disclosure as constraining what is released ^{[7] [1]}.

Exact, itemized lists of the document categories produced by JPMorgan and Deutsche Bank are not included in the public reporting reviewed here; the available record identifies the production as roughly 5,000 documents of bank and financial records, with specific mentions in reporting of account records, transactional data, internal emails (including Epstein–Staley correspondence), and files described in the subpoenas such as those tied to “Project Jeep” and Deutsche Bank accounts from 2013–2018 ^{[1] [4] [3] [2] [5]}.