“The accounts were supposed to be closed. But the money kept moving.”
Long after Deutsche Bank publicly claimed it had cut ties with Jeffrey Epstein, internal records reportedly showed the convicted sex offender still moving money through the bank’s systems. That contradiction now sits at the centre of a growing scandal involving hidden accounts, suspicious payments, and questions about how one of the world’s biggest banks handled one of the most notorious clients in modern financial history.
An investigation based on internal emails, Department of Justice files, and regulatory documents claims Deutsche Bank continued servicing Epstein linked accounts months after telling regulators the relationship had ended. And according to the report, some of those accounts remained active until just days after Epstein’s 2019 arrest on federal sex trafficking charges.
According to our source, Deutsche Bank told New York regulators in 2020 that its relationship with Epstein ended in December 2018. But internal bank communications reviewed by the publication reportedly showed some accounts connected to Epstein remained open until July 9, 2019, three days after his arrest. One internal email cited in the report reportedly came from Deutsche Bank director Stewart Oldfield, who wrote in May 2019 that some Epstein accounts were still “zero balance but still open.” That detail has become one of the most damaging parts of the investigation because it directly challenges the timeline previously presented by the bank to regulators.
The report also describes how millions of dollars reportedly continued moving through Epstein linked structures during that period. The documents reviewed and earlier findings from New York regulators, the accounts processed payments involving women and individuals connected to Epstein’s wider network. The transactions reportedly included hotel expenses, tuition payments, rent transfers, and international movement of funds.
Some Deutsche Bank staff reportedly questioned the activity internally. But according to the investigation, concerns raised by compliance employees were repeatedly dismissed or explained away by relationship managers overseeing Epstein’s accounts. One bank official reportedly approved suspicious transfers involving a Russian model by writing that “this type of activity is normal for this client.”
The findings have renewed criticism about how major financial institutions handle wealthy and politically sensitive clients behind closed doors. Deutsche Bank employees allegedly continued arranging private banking services for Epstein even as public scrutiny around him intensified.
Internal records reportedly showed coordination of large cash pickups, international transfers, and private client requests while discussions about shutting the accounts were still ongoing. One email cited in the investigation reportedly defended a €50,000 cash withdrawal request in Paris by saying Epstein “likes to have cash with him when he travels there.” That detail alone triggered strong reaction online after publication of the report.
Deutsche Bank later paid major financial penalties connected to its handling of Epstein’s accounts. The bank agreed to pay $150 million to New York regulators and later settled lawsuits involving Epstein’s victims for another $75 million. At the time, Deutsche Bank admitted failures in oversight and anti money laundering controls linked to the Epstein relationship. A spokesperson for the bank said the institution had “learnt from our mistakes and shortcomings” and said it had since strengthened its compliance systems and financial crime monitoring procedures.
The bank also maintained that Epstein had been informed in December 2018 that his accounts would eventually be closed, even if the process itself took several more months. Still, the new reporting is raising larger questions.
Not only about compliance failures. But about whether regulators were given a fully accurate picture of what happened inside the bank. One white collar defense lawyer interviewed by Fortune said the difference between an inaccurate statement and a knowingly false statement could become legally important. “Incorrect is a mistake,” the lawyer said. “False is when you know something is not true.” That distinction matters because senior legal officials at Deutsche Bank signed the regulatory agreements tied to the earlier investigation.
The controversy is also creating renewed attention around Deutsche Bank CEO Christian Sewing, who was leading the institution during part of the period covered by the report. At the time, Deutsche Bank was already dealing with multiple scandals involving regulatory failures, restructuring problems, and pressure from investors over repeated reputational crises.
The Epstein relationship became one of the bank’s most damaging public controversies. One former prosecutor interviewed by Fortune described the situation bluntly. “Corporations don’t go to jail. Banks negotiate settlements.” Reaction online has also intensified since publication of the report.
On Reddit and other discussion platforms, users questioned why some of the internal records only became public years after Epstein’s death and whether more details about the banking relationship still remain hidden. Others focused on a broader issue. How major financial institutions continue servicing wealthy clients even when serious warning signs exist internally. One Reddit user summarized the frustration this way. “Pay the fine, keep the client, move on.”
For now, no new criminal charges against Deutsche Bank executives have been announced in connection with the findings. But the investigation has reopened scrutiny around how banks manage high risk clients and how reputational concerns are weighed against profitable relationships. Because even years after Jeffrey Epstein’s death, the systems that protected his financial access are still being uncovered piece by piece. And some of the most uncomfortable details are only now coming into public view.
