What land records, permits, or property deeds reveal who financed and authorized construction on Epstein’s islands?
Executive summary
Public records and recent reporting show that Little St. James and Great St. James were owned by Jeffrey Epstein’s estate and sold in 2023 to financier Stephen Deckoff for about $60 million, and that banks and government files are now part of congressional probes — but local building-permit records and deed liens mentioned in reporting are sparse and piecemeal in the available sources [1] [2] [3]. House Democrats have obtained photos, videos and financial records from banks and the U.S. Virgin Islands authorities; those materials — plus deeds, settlement documents and any local permit filings — are the primary documentary avenues to trace who financed and authorized construction on the islands [4] [3] [5].
1. Deeds and sale records: the ownership trail that matters
Deeds and sale documents are the baseline records that show who owned the islands and when. Reporting establishes that Epstein owned Little St. James from 1998 until his death and that his estate sold both islands in 2023 to Stephen Deckoff’s SD Investments for roughly $60 million [2] [1]. Those deed transfers should list the grantor and grantee, the sale price and any recorded liens or covenants; the cited news coverage specifically references the 2023 sale and estate role in proceeds owed to the U.S. Virgin Islands [2] [1] [5]. Available sources do not list the full chain-of-title entries or parcel numbers; the reporting summarizes outcomes rather than reproducing recorder’s-office records [1] [2].
2. Liens, contractor filings and local recorder notes: scattered mentions, limited detail
Local recorder or “recorder of deeds” filings can show unpaid contractor liens and permits for construction. One compiled account notes that at Epstein’s death there was a recorded lien for nearly $40,000 owed to a contractor (Rex Wolterman) for pool construction, cited on an encyclopedia-style page summarizing public records [6]. Beyond that specific lien, the sources here do not publish a catalog of building permits, contractor licenses or detailed invoice trails for the island projects; investigative outlets and congressional releases have not, in the materials cited, reproduced full recorder-of-deeds reports or permit applications [6].
3. Building permits and municipal approvals: what to look for and what reporting shows
Permits and approvals — building permits, environmental permits, septic and dock permits — would show who submitted plans and who paid fees. News coverage about redevelopment plans after the 2023 sale repeatedly notes there has been little visible construction and, in at least one recent item, officials in the U.S. Virgin Islands said no development applications had been filed related to the high-profile redevelopment pitch [7]. That absence in reporting suggests either permits were not required/obtained for past work or they were not yet filed publicly; however, the sources do not provide a systematic search of USVI permitting databases [7].
4. Bank records, settlements and congressional subpoenas: financial flows and authorization clues
Financial institutions’ records and the estate’s settlement papers are central to tracing who financed work. The U.S. Virgin Islands secured a settlement with Epstein’s estate (more than $105 million) and the estate agreed to pay the territory cash plus half the proceeds of a sale of Little St. James — documents that were the practical vehicle for transferring proceeds and potentially documenting obligations related to the islands [5] [8]. House Oversight Democrats have obtained materials from major banks (JPMorgan Chase, Deutsche Bank) and have sought financial documents and communications to trace suspicious transactions and payments tied to Epstein’s operations [3] [9]. Those bank records, when produced in full, can reveal contractors, wire transfers, corporate shell payments and who authorized large disbursements that financed construction [3] [9].
5. Photographs, videos and law-enforcement inventories: physical evidence but incomplete provenance
The recently released photos and videos from the islands (more than 100 images and several videos) come from USVI authorities and were shared by House Democrats; they document interior and exterior features and can support forensic timelines of what existed when, but they do not on their own name financiers or permit applicants [10] [11]. Committee releases and media reporting note some images’ metadata dates, but available reports do not tie particular construction elements in the imagery to specific contracts or payments [12] [11].
6. Practical next steps for a records search
To determine who financed and authorized specific construction, follow three documentary tracks: county/USVI Recorder of Deeds and building-permit offices for title transfers, contractor filings, permits, and any mechanic’s liens [6] [7]; bank transaction records and subpoenaed correspondence already sought by Congress and referenced in media [3] [9]; estate settlement documents and sale agreements that allocate proceeds and may list obligations tied to structures or remediation [5] [1]. The sources show investigators and Congress are pursuing those avenues, but the materials publicly released so far remain summaries or partial caches rather than exhaustive permit-and-deed dumps [4] [3].
Limitations: available sources summarize sales, settlements, bank cooperation and released imagery but do not publish comprehensive deed searches, permit applications, contractor invoices or full bank-ledger evidence linking named individuals to specific construction authorizations [1] [3] [6]. Where multiple viewpoints exist — e.g., estate executives framing sales as resolving claims versus victims’ advocates and USVI officials demanding transparency — the reporting cites both lines of emphasis [1] [5].