What public records exist for Epstein's 1998 property purchases?
Executive summary
Public, government-held records show that Jeffrey Epstein acquired Little St. James in the U.S. Virgin Islands in 1998 and that various court and DOJ document dumps contain extensive material about his real-estate holdings; however, the public record around some 1998 mainland transactions (notably the Manhattan townhouse tied to Les Wexner) is described in reporting as incomplete or lacking a clear deed trail [1] [2] [3]. The Justice Department, the Virgin Islands Recorder of Deeds as cited in court exhibits, congressional oversight releases and large DOJ file disclosures are the main sources where researchers can find official traces of Epstein’s 1998 property activity [1] [4] [2].
1. What the Department of Justice has published and what it shows
The DOJ has created a public repository of Epstein-related materials and court records that include exhibits and filings referencing property acquisitions, and it has released millions of pages, images and videos related to the investigations that touch on Epstein’s properties and the way they were used [5] [6] [2]. Those releases contain a court exhibit that explicitly states Epstein “acquired Little St. James” in 1998 and refers to Recorder of Deeds records in the U.S. Virgin Islands as the source for ownership chains and company names tied to the islands [1].
2. Virgin Islands deed records and the Little St. James trail
Court exhibits filed in Virgin Islands litigation quote Recorder of Deeds records identifying corporate entities (such as Nautilus, Inc. and Financial Trust Company, Inc.) that held Little St. James and Great St. James and confirm Epstein’s 1998 acquisition of Little St. James; those exhibits are part of the DOJ’s publicly posted court record collection [1]. That is the clearest, government-cited public record for a 1998 Epstein property purchase: the island deed trail is documented within court filings and reproduced as government exhibits [1].
3. Mainland transactions: townhouse claims and gaps in the deed record
Reporting and later investigative pieces describe Epstein’s move into a Manhattan townhouse in 1998—reportedly purchased from Les Wexner—but at least one thorough business profile and subsequent reporting notes that there are “no public records of that transaction,” flagging a gap between public property records and narrative accounts [3] [7]. The public DOJ dumps and media reviews contain references, emails and images related to Epstein’s New York home, but they do not, in the sources cited here, present a definitive, unambiguous recorded deed showing the 1998 sale price and chain for that particular transfer [2] [3].
4. Oversight releases, FBI files and the scale of what’s available
Congressional oversight packages and DOJ releases have pushed tens of thousands to millions of pages into the public domain, and House committee releases of DOJ-provided records expand the accessible trail for researchers looking for property-related material [4] [8] [2]. The FBI’s public “Vault” on Epstein also aggregates federal records and reporting that intersect with property evidence, though those FBI materials function as investigative files rather than formal local deed records [9].
5. Limits, competing narratives and where to go next in the record
The government filings and DOJ exhibits establish a firm public-record link for Epstein’s 1998 purchase of Little St. James via Virgin Islands Recorder of Deeds citations, while reporting on the Manhattan townhouse purchase highlights missing or opaque deed documentation in public sources—an information gap acknowledged by journalists and investigators [1] [3] [2]. The volume of DOJ releases means additional property-related evidence may exist within the millions of pages released (and in the tens of thousands of pages released to Congress), but this review is limited to the cited government exhibits and public reporting; it cannot assert the existence of deed images or specific recorded sale documents for every 1998 mainland transaction without consulting local county or city recorder offices and the fuller DOJ and oversight document caches [4] [2].