These newly released Epstein files are fueling fresh scrutiny and demands for transparency around long-hidden financial and political networks. Source: Geoff Livingston

As new Epstein-related files continue to surface, a clearer picture is emerging of how his financial life intersected with hedge funds, private equity, and offshore trust networks. Those same networks now appear uncomfortably close to controversial litigation funding arrangements, including those tied to the supposed heirs of Sulu and the collapse of the Sulu arbitration.

At the center of this convergence sits Fortress Investment Group, a major private equity player whose name recurs both in Epstein’s financial orbit and in the reshaping of litigation funding after high-profile failures.

Epstein’s Money Was Always the Mystery, Fortress and the Afterlife of Failed Funds

Despite claiming to be a brilliant hedge fund manager, Epstein never provided audited proof of how he amassed his fortune. Prosecutors later estimated his wealth at more than $550 million, including significant holdings in hedge funds and private equity. Yet judges noted that his financial disclosures were unaudited and unverified, leaving large gaps in understanding where the money really came from.

"This matters because Fortress did not merely acquire distressed assets in isolation. It absorbed a portfolio shaped by opaque practices, insider relationships, and a fund in which Epstein was one of the earliest and largest investors."

What is known is that Epstein was deeply embedded in hedge fund culture. He invested tens of millions into aggressive funds run by associates of close friends, including Glenn Dubin and Dan Zwirn. The most consequential of these bets was an $80 million investment in D.B. Zwirn Special Opportunities Fund. When that fund collapsed amid accounting irregularities and an SEC investigation, its assets were ultimately taken over by Fortress Investment Group.

This matters because Fortress did not merely acquire distressed assets in isolation. It absorbed a portfolio shaped by opaque practices, insider relationships, and a fund in which Epstein was one of the earliest and largest investors. While there is no public evidence that Fortress engaged in wrongdoing in that transaction, the handover illustrates how Epstein-linked capital flowed seamlessly into mainstream private equity without meaningful transparency.

"Fortress’s role as the acquirer of Zwirn’s assets places it within that pattern, even if indirectly."

The Zwirn collapse was not Epstein’s only financial fiasco. He also lost heavily in Bear Stearns hedge funds that imploded during the financial crisis, funds later tied to criminal prosecutions. In both cases, Epstein attempted to withdraw money unsuccessfully, raising questions about lockups, preferential treatment, and leverage over fund managers.

The pattern is striking. Epstein’s money repeatedly sat inside vehicles that later failed, were investigated, or were quietly absorbed by larger institutions. Fortress’s role as the acquirer of Zwirn’s assets places it within that pattern, even if indirectly. It also foreshadows Fortress’s later interest in another opaque corner of finance: litigation funding.

From Epstein to Therium and the Sulu Heirs

Fast forward to the collapse of the Sulu arbitration, a case funded by Therium and promoted by individuals claiming to be heirs to the Sultan of Sulu. That arbitration unraveled spectacularly in European courts, culminating in the Paris Court of Appeal annulling the award in late 2025. The ruling exposed weak legal foundations and aggressive funding strategies designed to monetize speculative historical claims.

"Their claims depended on the same funding architecture that Fortress has moved to manage."

Therium’s response was telling. Rather than doubling down, it outsourced control of its litigation portfolio to Fortress Investment Group. Fortress, through vehicles such as Fortress Legal Assets Fund II, stepped into a sector reeling from reputational damage and regulatory scrutiny.

The supposed heirs of Sulu now sit squarely within this context. Their claims depended on the same funding architecture that Fortress has moved to manage. Private equity did not create the Sulu case, but it appears ready to inherit its remnants, just as it inherited assets from funds linked to Epstein years earlier.

The Dick-Stock Lawsuit and Offshore Echoes

The $12 billion Dick-Stock lawsuit adds another layer. Filed in Colorado, the case accuses major banks and Jersey-based trust companies of breaching fiduciary duties and looting a family trust through offshore structures. Crucially, the Jersey trust company at the heart of the case, La Hougue, is under investigation by the US Senate Finance Committee for alleged ties to financial networks connected to Epstein through Ghislaine Maxwell’s family.

This overlap is not trivial. The lawsuit paints Jersey as a jurisdiction where secrecy, professional intermediaries, and global banks combined to move assets beyond effective oversight. Those same characteristics define the funding routes used in Sulu-related litigation and other funder-driven claims.

When courts begin to interrogate offshore finance in one case, the implications spill outward. Funding structures once marketed as sophisticated start to look like liability magnets.

New Epstein Files, Old Problems, and Why This Looks Bad for the Sulu Claimants

Recent releases of Epstein-related files have not introduced new crimes, but they have reinforced the scale of his post-conviction acceptance among political figures, financiers, and institutions. Association itself is not proof of wrongdoing, but it raises questions about judgment, due diligence, and willful blindness.

For financial institutions and private equity groups, the risk is reputational as much as legal. Epstein’s money moved easily through elite financial channels. Today, litigation funding money linked to failed or dubious claims appears to be doing the same.

"Their funding model is now associated with opaque offshore finance under active scrutiny."

For the supposed heirs of Sulu, the optics are deteriorating fast. Their arbitration failed on legal merits. Their funding model is now associated with opaque offshore finance under active scrutiny. And their principal funder’s portfolio is effectively overseen by a private equity firm whose history includes absorbing assets from funds tied to Epstein’s financial network.

This places the Sulu claimants within an ecosystem increasingly viewed by courts and regulators as problematic. Offshore funding, third-party litigation finance, and historical claims repackaged as financial products are no longer novel, they are suspect.

Offshore Finance Under Pressure

The common thread linking Epstein, Fortress, Therium, the Dick-Stock lawsuit, and the Sulu arbitration is not conspiracy. It is structure, intentional complex with minimal transparency, and jurisdictional arbitrage. When those structures fail, they leave behind reputational wreckage that attaches to everyone involved.

"For claimants whose legitimacy is already contested, reliance on the same financial machinery that once sheltered Epstein is not just risky, it is corrosive."

As regulators dig deeper into Epstein’s finances and courts scrutinize offshore trusts and funder-driven claims, the space for plausible deniability is shrinking. For claimants whose legitimacy is already contested, reliance on the same financial machinery that once sheltered Epstein is not just risky, it is corrosive.

REFERENCES

AOL. (2026, January 17). Heiress sues big banks for $12B, claims dad looted $350M trust in offshore scheme tied to Ghislaine Maxwell siblings, Epstein probe. AOL. https://www.aol.com

KnowSulu. (2026, January 28). Offshore finance on trial: What the Dick-Stock lawsuit reveals about Jersey, big banks, and the Sulu funding network. KnowSulu. https://knowsulu.ph

KnowSulu. (2026, January 6). Fortress and Private Equity’s interest in declining litigation funders. KnowSulu. https://knowsulu.ph

Intelligencer. (2019, July 16). Jeffrey Epstein’s hedge-fund bets gone bad. New York Magazine Intelligencer. https://nymag.com

Sky News. (2026, February 7). We’ve combed through thousands of pages, photos and videos – here’s what we’ve found in Epstein files. Sky News. https://news.sky.com

The Guardian. (2026, February 9). Files cast light on Jeffrey Epstein’s ties to cryptocurrency. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com