What public evidence links Jean‑Luc Brunel’s modeling agencies (Karin/MC2) to Epstein’s travel logs and flight records?
Executive summary
Public records and reporting show multiple strands of public evidence tying Jean‑Luc Brunel’s agencies (Karin/MC2) to Jeffrey Epstein’s travel and flight records: Brunel himself appears in Epstein’s plane logs across years, several Eastern European models associated with Brunel-linked agencies appear on flights tied to Epstein, and emails and other documents reference MC2 or Brunel in the context of arranging women and travel; at the same time Brunel and his companies denied wrongdoing and some documents do not state travel purpose, leaving gaps in direct proof of criminal intent [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. Flight‑log appearances: Brunel listed on Epstein aircraft multiple times
Publicly reported flight logs place Jean‑Luc Brunel aboard Epstein’s private plane on numerous trips — a commonly cited figure is 25 flights between 1998 and 2005 — and specific reporting recounts Brunel on a 2002 flight from Florida to the Bahamas, establishing a documented pattern of Brunel traveling with Epstein [1] [5].
2. Models on Epstein flights: immigration and flight records connect Brunel‑linked models to Epstein planes
A review of flight and immigration records published in recent reporting shows multiple Eastern European women linked to Brunel’s agencies were repeatedly transported on aircraft associated with Epstein, with some flights originating near Epstein’s Little St. James island and landing across the U.S.; those records are explicit that Epstein’s plane was used to move non‑U.S. women who, in some instances, were sponsored through H‑1B filings tied to Brunel‑linked agencies, though the records often do not specify the purpose of the travel [2].
3. Emails and other documents: MC2/agency representatives in communications about travel and women
Beyond flight manifests, released emails and document batches include exchanges that mention MC2 Model Management or identify a party as an MC2 representative, and at least one House committee release and media reporting show an associate apparently referring to Brunel in messages that discuss “girls” and travel plans — material that connects modeling‑agency personnel in Epstein’s broader logistics and correspondence network [3] [6] [7].
4. Financial and organizational links: Epstein’s funding of MC2 and agency restructuring
Multiple accounts and reporting state that Epstein financed Brunel’s U.S. effort — MC2 — and that Epstein provided funds around 2004 to help launch or sustain Brunel’s agency operations; contemporaneous reporting and later coverage describe MC2 as co‑founded or financed with Epstein’s backing, establishing a financial and institutional connection between Epstein and Brunel’s business [1] [8] [4].
5. Contesting claims and limits of the public record: denials, lawsuits, and ambiguous provenance
Brunel and his entities consistently denied illegal conduct; Brunel denied wrongdoing in public statements, MC2 and Brunel disputed some media narratives and sued over alleged false links, and other reporting notes that while flight and visa logs show co‑travel, those records frequently do not state why passengers flew or the purpose of sponsorships — facts that leave space for alternative interpretations and legal defenses [1] [2] [4].
6. Corroboration versus causation: what the assembled evidence proves and what it does not
Taken together, flight logs, immigration filings, emails, and financial reporting create a web of public evidence that Brunel, his agencies, and Epstein were operationally and socially entangled — Brunel’s repeated presence on Epstein flights, Epstein funding for MC2, and models tied to Brunel appearing on Epstein aircraft are tangible links in public records — but the released documents often stop short of explicitly proving criminal coordination on any specific trip because many entries lack stated purpose and Brunel and his defenders disputed or sought to contextualize the connections [1] [2] [3] [4].