You’ll follow how Ghislaine Maxwell quietly redirected accounts, kept access to assets, and tapped new banks and advisers after Jeffrey Epstein’s arrest to preserve a significant portion of her wealth. She moved money, opened new accounts, and used businesses and charities to maintain control while banks and investigators picked up the trail.
Expect a clear look at her financial life before Epstein’s arrest, the specific moves she used to transfer and shield funds, and how banks like UBS handled her accounts amid rising scrutiny. The article also examines legal challenges, the role of charities and shell entities, and what asset freezes and her conviction mean for the future of those funds.
Maxwell’s Financial Life Before Epstein’s Arrest
Ghislaine Maxwell’s money picture mixed family inheritance, new ventures, and close financial ties with Jeffrey Epstein. She maintained multiple personal and business accounts, ran charity and service entities, and moved funds across accounts and jurisdictions.
Inheritance and Family Wealth After Robert Maxwell
After Robert Maxwell’s 1991 death, Ghislaine did not inherit the vast estate once expected but still received trusts and assets that formed part of her base capital. Reports and court filings indicate she benefited from trusts and some family holdings, with at least some multi‑million‑dollar sums identified in later document disclosures.
She used that initial capital to support a lifestyle and to seed investments. Bank records and reporting show funds flowed into personal accounts and trusts over time, and some assets were held in structures that obscured direct ownership. Those arrangements helped preserve wealth while limiting public visibility.
Building New Business Ventures and Charities
Maxwell organized and ran several entities that handled money and activities: Ellmax, Max Foundation, Max Hotel Services and the TerraMar Project stand out. Ellmax and the Max-branded companies were used to route payments for services, property costs, and business expenses. TerraMar positioned as an ocean-conservation charity and accepted donations and expenses tied to travel and events.
Documents and reporting show the entities held accounts that paid for legal, travel, and personal costs, and helped consolidate her financial administration. She also invested in shares and hedge funds through private accounts, creating diverse streams of assets that were accessible through relationship managers at private banks.
Relationship With Jeffrey Epstein and Money Transfers
Maxwell’s financial ties to Jeffrey Epstein included shared banking relationships, transfers, and benefits from his wealth. After Epstein’s 2008 conviction, some banks flagged risk around both of them, yet later disclosures show both used private banking services. Records indicate UBS opened accounts for Maxwell in 2014 and that she used them for personal expenses, investments, and to operate her business entities.
Wire transfers and card payments appear frequently in the account history, including payments routed through Ellmax and other Max entities. Reporting also notes specific transactions — for example, a July 22, 2019 transfer to cover a credit‑card bill — and subpoenas seeking records after Epstein’s 2019 arrest. These movements show how Maxwell managed liquidity across personal and business accounts and through bank channels, including international transfers and private‑bank relationship managers.
How Ghislaine Maxwell Moved and Protected Her Wealth
Maxwell kept access to cash, investments, and business accounts while responding to heightened scrutiny after Epstein’s arrest. Banks, advisers, and corporate vehicles played active roles in moving funds, paying bills, and maintaining investment positions.
Transition From JPMorgan Chase to UBS
In 2013–2014, JPMorgan Chase flagged Maxwell and tightened its relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, which led to account closures for Epstein and heightened internal scrutiny of associates. Maxwell’s move to UBS followed an introduction from David Wassong of Soros Private Equity Partners; UBS opened personal and business accounts for her in 2014 and began servicing cash, shares and hedge-fund positions held in those accounts.
UBS processed paperwork and assigned relationship managers who executed transfers and payments on Maxwell’s instructions. Bank statements and emails show transfers into new UBS accounts and routine disbursements for personal expenses and entities linked to her charities and businesses. The bank later provided information to investigators after receiving a grand jury subpoena in 2019.
Role of Relationship Managers and Special Services
UBS assigned dedicated relationship managers who treated Maxwell as a high-net-worth client, helping with payments, asset transfers, and investment administration. Those managers arranged actions such as moving funds between savings and checking to cover credit-card bills and coordinating transfers to entities like TerraMar Project and other business names she used.
The managers also handled account openings, coordinated due diligence requests, and liaised with internal compliance. Internal notes and correspondence indicate the bank offered services typical for wealthy clients, including access to investment products and tailored account servicing, while simultaneously documenting risk and responding to regulatory inquiries.
Use of Business Entities and Trusts
Maxwell used multiple business names and entities—Ellmax, Pot & Kettle, Max Foundation, Max Hotel Services and TerraMar Project—to receive funds, pay expenses, and separate personal from business flows. These entities show on bank records and helped mask the direct ownership of certain assets.
Private trusts and offshore arrangements have been reported in broader investigative documents as part of the Maxwell family’s wealth structure. Trusts and corporate entities allowed continuation of investments and holding of shares while legal exposure and public scrutiny increased, making asset transfers and management more complex but still operational.
For more reporting on UBS’s handling of Maxwell’s accounts, see Reuters’ coverage of the bank’s relationship with Maxwell.
Financial Moves After Epstein’s Arrest
Maxwell moved money and adjusted accounts in the weeks after Epstein’s 2019 arrest to cover immediate bills, shift liquidity, and manage relationships tied to her personal and business expenses. Bank records and released documents show specific transfers, payments on credit cards, and instructions involving close associates.
Quick Transfers and Covering Expenses
On July 22, 2019—16 days after Epstein’s arrest—UBS executed a $130,000 transfer at Maxwell’s request, moving funds from a savings to a checking account to pay an American Express bill. That payment illustrates how she used existing accounts to meet urgent obligations rather than seeking new credit lines.
UBS handled her personal and charitable accounts, including TerraMar Project, and maintained relationship managers who processed routine instructions. These moves show a focus on liquidity for day-to-day costs and card obligations while legal scrutiny intensified.
- Date: July 22, 2019
- Amount: $130,000
- Purpose: American Express card payment
- Bank: UBS
Wire Transfers to Scott Borgerson
Documents record larger, instructed transfers to Scott Borgerson, Maxwell’s then-husband. In 2016 Maxwell requested a $2.5 million payment to Borgerson; later communications around 2019 show continued wiring capabilities between her accounts and parties linked to her household and relationships.
These wire transfers demonstrate how Maxwell used banking channels to fund personal relationships and obligations. Banks logged the beneficiary names and movements; one payment to Borgerson in 2016 is a clear, documented example of sizable transfers. The pattern indicates sustained access to sizable sums despite Epstein’s arrest and rising public scrutiny.
Asset Sales and Liquidations
UBS accounts held cash, shares, and hedge fund positions tied to Maxwell’s portfolio; the bank’s records indicate she moved between cash and liquid assets when needed. After Epstein’s arrest, the emphasis in correspondence and statements shifted toward converting holdings to readily accessible forms to meet subpoenas, legal fees, and personal expenses.
There is public record of account activity rather than a detailed public ledger of every sale, but the bank’s provision of statements and responses to a Grand Jury subpoena show UBS supplied information on wire transfers and asset movements. That documentation suggests Maxwell relied on selling or reclassifying investments within her UBS relationship to maintain cash flow.
Legal Scrutiny and Banking Compliance Issues
Banks reviewing Maxwell’s accounts faced questions about client risk, information sharing with investigators, and damage to institutional reputation. Documents show internal risk flags, account transfers after Epstein’s arrest, and at least one federal subpoena that drew FBI attention.
High Risk Client Flags and Internal Reviews
JPMorgan had labeled Maxwell a “High Risk Client” during a 2011 know-your-customer review, noting her close ties to Jeffrey Epstein and the heightened due-diligence that felons and their associates require. That internal flag contributed to JPMorgan closing Epstein’s accounts in 2013, and the record shows different banks treated Maxwell’s profile unevenly.
When UBS took her accounts in 2014, staff ran standard onboarding checks and assigned relationship managers. Some internal emails and documents indicate follow-up questions and documented reviews, but public records don’t detail the full scope of the diligence UBS performed before accepting her business. The discrepancy between JPMorgan’s earlier flag and UBS’s acceptance highlights how banks apply risk frameworks differently.
Key points:
- High-risk designation by one bank did not automatically prevent account openings elsewhere.
- Internal reviews can vary in depth; documentation released so far is partial.
- Relationship managers often handle transfer logistics even when questions about reputational exposure exist.
Grand Jury Subpoena and FBI Involvement
After Epstein’s 2019 arrest, investigators issued a grand jury subpoena to UBS seeking transactional records tied to Maxwell. UBS acknowledged receiving the subpoena in a letter and provided wire-transfer and account information to federal authorities, according to bank correspondence shared publicly.
The FBI’s involvement shows investigators used bank records to trace movements of funds and link payments to third parties. That cooperation can trigger additional internal compliance work at banks: legal teams must balance client confidentiality, regulatory obligations, and compelled production of records. The subpoena also indicates prosecutors viewed banking records as material evidence in wider inquiries.
What happened next:
- UBS produced transactional data to the FBI under subpoena.
- Federal scrutiny focused on transfers and payments made around key dates, including soon after Epstein’s arrest.
- Production of records can prompt banks to re-evaluate client relationships and compliance controls.
Reputational Risk for Banks
Banks weigh revenue from wealthy clients against potential reputational harm when clients become subjects of criminal investigations. JPMorgan’s decision to sever ties with Epstein cited reputational considerations; internal communications later described Maxwell as high risk for similar reasons. UBS’s continued relationship with Maxwell drew public scrutiny after documents emerged showing account activity and payments following Epstein’s arrest.
Reputational risk shows up in several ways:
- Media coverage and public backlash can affect a bank’s brand and client trust.
- Regulators may increase oversight of institutions perceived to have lax controls.
- Legal exposure and remediation costs can follow if compliance gaps appear.
UBS’s public responses emphasized cooperation with authorities and claimed due diligence, but released records left unanswered questions about timing and depth of reviews. Institutions often respond by tightening onboarding and monitoring policies for politically or criminally exposed individuals to mitigate future exposure.
Charities, Shell Companies, and Offshore Accounts
Maxwell maintained a mix of visible philanthropy and opaque corporate structures that helped move money and shield ownership. Documents and reporting show philanthropic names and parallel corporate vehicles appearing in public filings and offshore leaks.
TerraMar Project and Philanthropic Activities
The TerraMar Project represented Maxwell’s most public-facing charity, presented as an ocean-conservation nonprofit. It raised awareness, hosted events, and linked Maxwell with academics and donors, creating a legitimate-looking platform for donations and payments.
Behind the scenes, the project’s finances intertwined with other entities tied to Maxwell’s circle. Reports and filings indicate transfers and reimbursements between TerraMar, private foundations, and service companies such as Max Hotel Services used for event logistics and property management. That arrangement allowed operational costs to flow through corporate payees rather than appear as direct personal expenditures.
Media and leaked documents show TerraMar’s formal closure after Epstein’s arrest, but some charitable vehicles and trusts continued to appear in corporate registries and offshore records, complicating a clear accounting of funds and beneficiaries.
Opaque Ownership and Hidden Assets
Maxwell used a web of shell companies, trusts, and offshore accounts to obscure beneficial ownership and preserve liquidity. Corporate registries and offshore leaks reveal entities registered in tax havens that received payments or held assets tied to her and related firms like Ellmax and the Max Foundation.
These structures frequently layered ownership: a trust or Jersey company would own shares in a UK vehicle, which in turn controlled service firms or property holdings. That layering made it difficult for investigators to trace direct inheritance or ongoing financial control, especially after Epstein’s death limited access to his records.
Bank records obtained in reporting show routine transfers between accounts and occasional bank-assisted moves, such as a documented UBS transfer after Epstein’s arrest. The pattern suggests a deliberate use of offshore secrecy and corporate intermediaries to keep assets available while minimizing public exposure.
Lasting Impact: Conviction, Asset Freezes, and Future Prospects
Ghislaine Maxwell’s conviction, public records, and bank activity shaped how investigators, creditors, and associates treated her money. Courts and banks tightened access to accounts, legal bills mounted, and relationships that once facilitated wealth management came under intense scrutiny.
Sex-Trafficking Conviction and Asset Freezes
After the 2021 conviction for sex trafficking, prosecutors and some civil claimants pressed for access to Maxwell’s financial records and funds. Grand jury materials and court filings prompted subpoenas that targeted transfers, trust payments, and bank statements tied to entities like TerraMar Project and other named companies.
Federal investigators and plaintiffs sought account freezes to preserve funds for potential restitution and civil judgments. Banks that had handled her accounts before 2014 faced renewed compliance checks, and at least one major lender provided records to authorities under subpoena.
The criminal sentence limited Maxwell’s personal control over assets in practice, even where title remained in trusts. Courts prioritized tracing transfers out of concern that funds could be dissipated to avoid claims.
Legal Fees and Remaining Wealth
Maxwell’s defense and appeal costs consumed a substantial portion of accessible cash. High-priced criminal defense attorneys and consultants, along with forensic accounting and appeal preparations, created recurring outflows documented in banking records and invoices.
Reports indicate she retained investments and trusts that were complex and offshore-structured, which complicated seizure and valuation. Some accounts reportedly held millions in cash, shares, and hedge fund positions, but litigation expenses, fines, and settlements steadily reduced liquid reserves.
Her legal team used motions to protect certain records, arguing confidentiality for grand jury testimony, while opposing parties cited the same documents to support compensation claims. This tug-of-war over documents affected how quickly claimants could reach any remaining assets.
Influence of Associates and Public Fallout
Associates who had introduced or managed Maxwell’s finances came under media and regulatory attention. Relationship managers and intermediaries who facilitated transfers or opened accounts saw their roles examined in subpoenas and reporting.
Public scrutiny altered the willingness of banks and advisers to continue relationships; some firms flagged her or cut ties earlier, while others renewed services and later faced reputational questions. High-profile names connected to legal or political spheres — including filings and media coverage that referenced public figures — intensified the reputational cost.
That fallout influenced negotiations over frozen funds and settlement leverage, as claimants and regulators factored in likely recoverable assets and the practical ability of associates to move or safeguard remaining wealth.
More from Vinyl and Velvet:
Leave a Reply