Which companies, trusts, or individuals hold ownership of Jeffrey Epstein’s properties in the U.S. Virgin Islands and who controls them?
Executive summary
Public records and recent reporting show Jeffrey Epstein owned two U.S. Virgin Islands properties — Little St. James and Great St. James — that his estate was required to sell under a 2022 settlement that will direct proceeds toward victim compensation and USVI claims; the USVI settlement was for over $105 million and required sale of the islands [1]. Congressional release of photos and videos and recent Oversight Committee correspondence emphasize ongoing probes into who managed Epstein’s local operations and tax dealings on the islands [2] [3] [4].
1. What Epstein owned in the USVI — two private islands
Jeffrey Epstein owned Little St. James and Great St. James, both private islands near St. Thomas in the U.S. Virgin Islands; Little St. James has been the focus of investigations and reporting for years because it was described in accounts as the center of Epstein’s activities in the territory [2] [3] [5].
2. The legal resolution: a settlement that forces sales and pays victims
The US Virgin Islands Attorney General sued Epstein’s estate and associated entities in 2020; a December 2022 settlement required the estate to pay $105 million in cash plus half the proceeds from the sale of Little St. James, and it mandated that Little St. James and Great St. James be sold to independent third parties to fund settlements and terminate Epstein’s ownership of the islands [1].
3. Who controlled the properties before the settlement — estate entities and “dozens” of shell companies
Reporting and USVI filings describe Epstein’s holdings as a web of estate structures and Epstein-created entities that the USVI DOJ alleged were used to carry out and conceal his scheme; the 2020 action named the estate and “ten Epstein-created entities,” indicating ownership and control were exercised through corporate vehicles rather than simple individual title [3] [1].
4. Post-settlement control: sale to “independent third parties” but details remain limited
The settlement obligates the estate to sell the islands to independent buyers, and the USVI DOJ framed that as terminating Epstein’s ownership and preventing his associates from re-acquiring the property [1]. Available sources do not list the buyers’ names, closing dates, or the identities of the current controlling companies or trustees beyond the settlement language [1].
5. Competing accounts and contemporary claims about redevelopment and third parties
Some investigative pieces and secondary reporting have suggested firms such as “SD Investments” planned redevelopment of the islands as luxury resorts, and have described proceeds being earmarked for victim compensation and legal claims [6]. That reporting is presented as an account by a private author and is not directly confirmed in the USVI Attorney General’s settlement notice or the congressional materials cited elsewhere [6] [1].
6. Why Congress and the Oversight Committee are still probing ownership and control
House Oversight Democrats recently released photos and videos from Little St. James and have requested documents from the USVI attorney general and others to learn more about Epstein’s business dealings, tax arrangements, and local relationships — including how Epstein allegedly negotiated tax breaks and other local dealings while owning the islands [2] [4] [7]. The Committee has also sought more documents to aid its broader investigation into Epstein and associates [3] [4].
7. What is clear — and what remains opaque
It is clear Epstein’s estate and related entities were the legal owners until the 2022 settlement required sales and payouts [1]. What is not fully documented in the provided reporting is the post-settlement chain of title, the identities of the ultimate purchasers or trustees of the islands, or whether any of Epstein’s former associates retain indirect control — available sources do not mention those specific buyers or controllers [1] [6].
8. Why this matters: accountability, restitution and potential conflicts
The islands figured centrally in the USVI’s civil claims alleging trafficking, rape and exploitation; the settlement’s forced sale was framed as both a money remedy for the territory and a structural remedy to prevent the islands’ re-use by Epstein associates [1]. Congressional interest signals concern that civil settlements and public records may not fully reveal the financial and political networks tied to Epstein’s USVI operations [3] [4].
Limitations and next steps for reporters and readers: public documents cited here (USVI DOJ settlement and recent Oversight Committee releases) establish the legal framework and the pledge to sell the properties but do not disclose purchaser identities or current controllers; follow-up should target recorded deeds, court filings in the USVI sale process, and the Oversight Committee’s document productions for names of buying entities and any trustees or managers who now control the islands [1] [3] [4].