Which offshore jurisdictions hosted shell companies connected to Jeffrey Epstein?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Jeffrey Epstein used a network of offshore vehicles tied to well-known secrecy jurisdictions — notably Bermuda, the U.S. Virgin Islands and several Crown dependencies and Caribbean tax havens — according to leaked Appleby files, investigative reporting and offshore-leaks databases [1] [2] [3]. Reporting shows incorporation, administration and banking links in those places but also stresses that being connected to an offshore vehicle does not by itself prove illegal activity [1] [2] [4].
1. Bermuda: the law firm that appears at the center
Leaked Paradise Papers material and reporting trace Epstein’s offshore work to Appleby, a Bermuda-founded law firm that provided incorporation and administration services and whose files include a 500-page dossier on an Epstein offshore vehicle — establishing Bermuda as a primary jurisdiction tied to his shell structures [1] [2].
2. U.S. Virgin Islands: tax residency and trust scaffolding
Epstein’s relocation to the U.S. Virgin Islands and his use of trusts and entities there are well-documented; reporters and public records link his efforts to reduce tax exposure and to register financial vehicles in the USVI, and the jurisdiction has been described as a flexible, low-tax base in which Epstein structured trusts and bank relationships [5] [6] [2].
3. Bermuda-linked Liquid Funding and other offshore incorporations
One of the most explicit examples is Liquid Funding Ltd., which was incorporated in Bermuda and chaired by Epstein for years; media reporting and leaked corporate filings show that Liquid Funding’s Bermuda incorporation tied Epstein’s chairmanship to an Appleby-created offshore company [3] [1].
4. Crown dependencies and Channel Islands: Isle of Man, Jersey, Guernsey
Investigations and commentary about Appleby’s client list note that the offshore services world routinely operates across multiple secrecy jurisdictions; some sources that examined Liquid Funding and Appleby’s work mention Isle of Man, Guernsey and Jersey among jurisdictions commonly used by Appleby clients and linked in reporting to Epstein-connected structures [3] [1].
5. Cayman Islands and other Caribbean tax havens
Journalistic reconstructions of Epstein’s corporate web point to broader Caribbean usage — the Cayman Islands and other regional secrecy jurisdictions — as part of the pattern of placing assets and vehicles offshore, a conclusion supported by multiple news outlets that reviewed Appleby and Swiss-bank-related documents [7] [2] [6].
6. Switzerland: banking relationships in leaked records
Unauthorized releases of Swiss bank documents show Epstein in offshore banking networks as early as the 1990s, linking him to cross-border private banking (not necessarily incorporation) and highlighting Swiss banks’ role in managing offshore funds for clients like Epstein [2].
7. What these links mean — caution and limits in the record
Investigative outlets (ICIJ, Miami Herald, Bloomberg) make clear that finding a name or company linked to a secrecy jurisdiction is a starting point for inquiry, not automatic proof of criminality: offshore firms are used for lawful tax planning and privacy as well as for concealment, and the ICIJ Offshore Leaks Database explicitly notes inclusion does not imply illegal conduct [1] [4]. Reporting also emphasizes the difficulty of fully tracing assets once placed behind nominee directors and opaque structures [2] [8].
8. Competing narratives and possible agendas
While mainstream investigations (ICIJ/Bloomberg/Miami Herald) focus on Appleby and well-known tax havens, other sources emphasize a wider set of secrecy jurisdictions or suggest deeper conspiratorial explanations; some commentators or partisan outlets may overstate connections or list jurisdictions without documentary backing — a discrepancy the public record does not uniformly resolve [1] [3]. At the same time, offshore-services providers and certain financial intermediaries have an institutional interest in minimizing reputational damage from leaks, which colors public statements and limits transparency [1].
9. Bottom line and reporting gap
Documented links tie Epstein to offshore entities incorporated or administered in Bermuda, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and to companies or services associated with Isle of Man, Guernsey, Jersey and the Cayman Islands, with Swiss banking ties appearing in leaked records; however, the full universe of jurisdictions that hosted shell companies “connected” to Epstein cannot be declared exhaustively from the available leaks and media reporting alone, and the ICIJ database remains the primary public tool for further verification [1] [2] [3] [4].