Skip to main content
Skip to content
Subpoenas

Line of Investigation 06: Financial Institutions Without Returns

22 EFTA citations2,148 words4 persons referenced

Twenty grand jury subpoenas directed at financial institutions produced zero identifiable returns in the production corpus. These 20 subpoenas — targeting 12 unique institutions — contained 192 individual demand clauses requesting bank records, wire transfer documentation, account statements, and customer identification records. No returns have been matched to any of these subpoenas in the released EFTA corpus. The institutions with no matched returns include major banks (Wells Fargo, Capital On

Line of Investigation 06: Financial Institutions Without Returns

Executive Summary

Twenty grand jury subpoenas directed at financial institutions produced zero identifiable returns in the production corpus. These 20 subpoenas — targeting 12 unique institutions — contained 192 individual demand clauses requesting bank records, wire transfer documentation, account statements, and customer identification records. No returns have been matched to any of these subpoenas in the released EFTA corpus. The institutions with no matched returns include major banks (Wells Fargo, Capital One, TD Bank, Santander), a securities broker (TD Ameritrade), Maxwell-specific accounts at UBS Financial Services, a Caribbean bank (FirstBank Puerto Rico), and a credit union tied to MCC guards (MCU). Notably, the subpoenas divide into two distinct investigation tracks visible through their cited statutes: the sex trafficking investigation (case 2019R00903) and the guard corruption investigation (case 2019R01059). Among the guard corruption track's banking subpoenas, only Navy Federal Credit Union and USAA have matched returns in the corpus.


1. Institutions With No Matched Returns

Complete List (Deduplicated)

InstitutionSubpoenasTotal ClausesDate(s) IssuedStatutes
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wells Fargo / Wells Fargo Bank334Aug 16-17, 20191591/1594(c)/2422(b)/371; 201/371/1001/1346/1519/2
Capital One / Capital One Bank221Aug 28, Oct 7, 201912 U.S.C. 3415; 1591/1594(c)/2422(b)/371
UBS Financial Services, Inc.220Jun 29, 2020[not parsed]
UMB Bank224May 29, Jun 15, 2020[not parsed]
FirstBank Puerto Rico321Dec 31, 2019[not parsed]
TD Bank114Aug 17, 201912 U.S.C. 3415
Santander114Aug 19, 2019201/371/1001/1346/1519/2
MCU (Municipal Credit Union)114Aug 17, 201912 U.S.C. 3415
Credit One Bank113Oct 2, 2019[not parsed]
TD Ameritrade110Aug 11, 2019[not parsed]
Fifth Third Bank16Sep 26, 2019[not parsed]
First Premier Bank10Oct 2, 2019[not parsed]
Total20192

Additionally, Equifax (credit reporting agency, EFTA00123521, Aug 30, 2019, 2 clauses) produced no returns.


2. Two Investigation Tracks

The statutes cited on the subpoena face pages reveal two distinct SDNY investigations targeting different conduct:

Track 1: Sex Trafficking (2019R00903)

  • Statutes: 18 U.S.C. sections 1591, 1594(c), 2422(b), 371
  • Focus: Sex trafficking, conspiracy to commit sex trafficking, enticement of minors
  • Returns directed to: FBI Special Agents and Forensic Accountants at 26 Federal Plaza

Track 2: Guard Corruption / Obstruction (2019R01059)

  • Statutes: 18 U.S.C. sections 201, 371, 1001, 1346, 1519, 2
  • Focus: Bribery, conspiracy, false statements, honest services fraud, obstruction/evidence tampering, aiding and abetting
  • Returns directed to: AUSAs at 1 St. Andrew's Plaza

The guard corruption subpoenas were issued to banks where MCC correctional officers Tova Noel and Michael Thomas (later charged with falsifying prison records) held accounts. The same case number (2019R01059) appears on Navy Federal Credit Union and USAA subpoenas, which did produce returns — making the absence of matched returns for Wells Fargo Bank, TD Bank, Santander, and MCU notable by contrast.


3. Key Institutions With No Matched Returns

Wells Fargo (3 subpoenas, 34 clauses, zero returns)

Three separate subpoenas:

  • EFTA00019966 (Aug 16, 2019, 6 clauses) — Addresses Capital One Bank, Richmond VA; requests "from account inception to the present" across multiple identifiers (names, DOB, SSN, addresses, phone, email, account numbers). All identifiers redacted.
  • EFTA00027184 (Aug 17, 2019, 14 clauses) — Guard corruption track (2019R01059). Requests January 1, 2019 to present. Demands detailed wire transfers, ACH records, credit card records, customer information, and electronic spreadsheet format. Signed by Geoffrey S. Berman.
  • EFTA00123499 (Aug 17, 2019, 14 clauses) — Duplicate of EFTA00027184.
  • The two different subpoena formats (6-clause vs. 14-clause) suggest different targets: the first may relate to Epstein-linked accounts, the second to guard accounts under the corruption investigation.

    Capital One (2 subpoenas, 21 clauses, zero returns)

  • EFTA00079229 (Oct 7, 2019, 4 clauses) — Sex trafficking statutes (1591/1594(c)/2422(b)/371). Requests records from account inception. Multiple addresses referenced in redacted identifiers: Miami Beach FL, NC, NYC NY, Thomasville. Directed to FBI at 26 Federal Plaza.
  • EFTA00123710 (Aug 28, 2019, 17 clauses) — References case 2019R00903. Requests January 1, 2015 to present. Demands include IP history, user agent strings, cookies, device information, IMEI numbers, surveillance tapes, and telephone call recordings — going beyond typical banking subpoenas into digital forensics territory.
  • UBS Financial Services (2 subpoenas, 20 clauses, zero returns)

    Both subpoenas (EFTA00073427, EFTA00102389) are dated June 29, 2020 — nearly a year after Epstein's death — and explicitly name Ghislaine Maxwell's accounts:

    • Ghislaine Maxwell (personal accounts)
    • Terramar Project Inc.
    • Max Foundation
    • ELLMAX, LLC
    • Ghislaine Maxwell IRA

    These are distinct from the five separate UBS (not "UBS Financial Services") subpoenas that did produce partial returns. The distinction matters: UBS Financial Services held Maxwell's personal and organizational accounts; the other UBS subpoenas may have targeted different account relationships.

    The rider demands KYC documentation, wire transfer records, safe deposit records, and account opening documents for all named entities. No matched returns appear in the corpus.

    MCU — Municipal Credit Union (1 subpoena, 14 clauses, zero returns)

    EFTA00027204, dated August 17, 2019, cites 12 U.S.C. 3415 (Right to Financial Privacy Act). This is part of the guard corruption track (2019R01059).

    The absence of matched returns from MCU is notable in the context of the other guard banking subpoenas:

    InstitutionCaseReturned?Clauses Fulfilled
    ------------------------------------------------
    Navy Federal Credit Union2019R01059Yes27/28 per subpoena copy
    USAA Federal Savings Bank2019R01059Yes13-39 fulfilled per subpoena
    Wells Fargo Bank2019R01059No matched returns0
    TD Bank2019R01059No matched returns0
    Santander2019R01059No matched returns0
    MCU2019R01059No matched returns0 (all 14 UNKNOWN)

    MCU is a New York City municipal employees' credit union. If either Noel or Thomas held MCU accounts, the absence of matched returns represents a gap in the financial record of the guard prosecution as reflected in this corpus. Navy Federal and USAA — both military/federal employee institutions — produced returns; MCU, Wells Fargo, TD Bank, and Santander did not within the matched corpus.

    FirstBank Puerto Rico (3 subpoenas, 21 clauses, zero returns)

    Three identical copies of the same subpoena, all dated December 31, 2019 (EFTA00010454, EFTA00099233, EFTA00153787). Each contains 7 clauses using the Deutsche Bank-style rider template (KYC filings, account opening/closing, monthly statements, signature cards, identification records, loan files, deposit/withdrawal items).

    The December 31 date is notable — it is the last business day of 2019, suggesting either a filing deadline or a late-stage investigative addition. FirstBank Puerto Rico would hold records relevant to Epstein's USVI operations, given the Caribbean banking connections between Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands.


    4. Demand Clause Analysis

    Data Classes Demanded

    Data ClassClause Count% of Total
    ------------------------------------
    bank_records17189.1%
    phone_records94.7%
    identification63.1%
    other42.1%
    property21.0%
    Total192100%

    The "phone_records" classification is a PQG artifact — these clauses actually demand customer contact information (names, addresses, phone numbers, email addresses), not telephone call records. Similarly, "property" clauses are preambles listing identifier fields (DOB, SSN, address, etc.) for the subpoena targets.

    Common Demand Patterns

    Two rider templates dominate:

    Template A (shorter, 4-6 clauses): Used for Capital One EFTA00079229, Wells Fargo EFTA00019966, Fifth Third Bank. Requests data transaction files, deposit/withdrawal documents, signature cards, and proof of identification. Template B (longer, 13-17 clauses): Used for Wells Fargo Bank, TD Bank, MCU, Santander, Credit One Bank, Capital One Bank. Includes all Template A demands plus check images (front and back), cashier's checks, wire transfer/ACH details, credit card records, customer information, electronic spreadsheet format, and specific instructions for field headers and data dictionaries.

    Template B subpoenas uniformly demand "All transactions-based information in electronic spreadsheet format (Microsoft Excel or similarly compatible format)" with explicit instructions for field structure. This level of specificity suggests prosecutors intended to perform systematic financial analysis, not merely review documents.


    5. Financial Institutions With and Without Matched Returns

    For context, the following financial institutions did produce returns:

    InstitutionSubpoenasReturnsNotes
    ---------------------------------------
    Deutsche Bank AG4 (identical)96,031 pages14-month delay (see Dossier 05)
    JP Morgan Chase4Returns linkedMultiple production batches
    Bank of America2Returns linked
    Citibank4Returns linked40 clauses fulfilled, 2 unfulfilled
    Navy Federal Credit Union3Returns linkedGuard accounts; 27/28 fulfilled
    USAA Federal Savings5+Returns linkedGuard accounts; mostly fulfilled
    UBS5Partial returns4 fulfilled, 12 unfulfilled
    Gold Coast Federal Credit Union1Returns linked
    Overall: 32 financial institution subpoenas produced identifiable returns; 20 produced none. A 38.5% rate of financial institution subpoenas with no matched returns in the released corpus.

    6. Investigative Gaps

    The PQG flagged 19 UNFULFILLED_DEMAND gaps for the no-return financial subpoenas, all rated HIGH severity except First Premier Bank (MODERATE — no clauses parsed).

    Additionally, 5 PARTIAL_RESPONSE gaps were flagged for institutions that returned some records but left specific demands unmet:

    InstitutionFulfilledUnfulfilledMissing Class
    ---------------------------------------------------
    Deutsche Bank1628bank_records, identification
    UBS412bank_records
    Citibank402phone_records
    USAA131phone_records
    Navy Federal271phone_records

    7. Structural Observations

  • The matched-return pattern differs by institution type among the guard corruption subpoenas. Military/federal-employee banks (Navy Federal, USAA) have matched returns in the corpus. Private commercial banks (Wells Fargo, TD Bank, Santander) and a municipal credit union (MCU) do not. This may reflect different legal teams, different compliance cultures, different response timelines, or returns that were received but are not identifiable in the released corpus.
  • Capital One's two subpoenas serve different investigations. The October 2019 subpoena (4 clauses, sex trafficking statutes, directed to FBI) likely targets Epstein-associated accounts. The August 2019 subpoena (17 clauses, Right to Financial Privacy Act citation, case 2019R00903) includes digital forensics demands (IP history, IMEI numbers) that suggest investigation of online activity tied to specific accounts.
  • UBS Financial Services vs. UBS represents a split within the same banking group. Five "UBS" subpoenas have partial matched returns; two "UBS Financial Services, Inc." subpoenas targeting Maxwell's named accounts have no matched returns in the corpus. Whether UBS Financial Services is a distinct legal entity with separate compliance processes, or whether the Maxwell-specific demands triggered a different institutional response, is not determinable from the corpus.
  • UMB Bank shows a mixed pattern. The two UMB Bank subpoenas (May-June 2020) with substantive demands have no matched returns. However, separate "UMB Bank regarding G. Maxwell" entries (EFTA00151242, EFTA00151243) with 0 clauses are linked to returns — suggesting UMB may have produced Maxwell-specific records in response to informal or narrowly-scoped requests, while the broader grand jury demands have no identifiable returns in the corpus.
  • No follow-up subpoenas appear in the corpus for any of these institutions. The PQG contains no second-round demands to Wells Fargo, Capital One, TD Bank, Santander, MCU, or any other institution without matched returns. Whether prosecutors pursued follow-up through other channels (informal requests, enforcement motions, or separate proceedings) is not documented in the corpus.

  • 8. Source Documents

    EFTA Citations (all hyperlinked to justice.gov)

    Wells Fargo: EFTA00019966, EFTA00027184, EFTA00123499 Capital One: EFTA00079229, EFTA00123710 UBS Financial Services: EFTA00073427, EFTA00102389 UMB Bank: EFTA00102515, EFTA00155620 FirstBank Puerto Rico: EFTA00010454, EFTA00099233, EFTA00153787 TD Bank: EFTA00027194 Santander: EFTA00123509 MCU: EFTA00027204 Credit One Bank: EFTA00109004 TD Ameritrade: EFTA00068090 Fifth Third Bank: EFTA00079159 First Premier Bank: EFTA00109044 Equifax: EFTA00123521
    This dossier is part of the Prosecutorial Query Graph Lines of Investigation series. See 00_INDEX.md for methodology and the complete list of dossiers.