Jeff Epstein's money laundering UK 'royals' are related to Jeffrey Epstein's money laundering Roche family through Jeffrey Epstein's Russia's nobility and German 'royals'. And there is more than one Maja Hoffmann of Roche, who are cousins. And they have been self-protecting their ill-gained wealth.

Published on 15 September 2026 at 07:53

09/15/2026

Some pretty interesting finds this morning while researching Jeffrey Epstein money launderer, Roche, and their family of majority shareholders.

The first big find, below, was that there are two Maja Hoffmans who are cousins, Maja Hoffmann, and Maja Oeri Hoffmann, similar to comedian Bob Newhart's TV show, Newhart, where the characters had three brothers, and two of them were named Darryl. EACH Maya Hoffmann seems to be linked to Epstein in different ways, and so the more Roche, Novartis, Roche-Novartis, and Edge Foundation Hoffmanns linked to Epstein, the stronger and stronger our strong case becomes.

Every time we think we have proven our case brought to and disappeared by the DOJ in the Epstein files, huge volumes of new evidence "perfectly" support and/or prove our legal conclusions brought to the DOJ in 2024, that Jeffrey Epstein's crime syndicate is who overthrew at least the 2016+ U.S. elections.

Jeffrey Epstein's money laundering Roche's Hoffmanns and Jeffrey Epstein's money laundering UK 'royals' are no different, also obfuscating their ill-got wealth and power by employing the same names, and in fact are related to one another, and through Jeffrey Epstein's Russia, because of course.

And so in the same manner that Epstein's Germanic UK 'royals' have in part obfuscated their dubious royal claims by repeatedly re-employing the same or similar names of the actual English royal bloodlines and changing the laws and norms to self-justify and/or conceal their ill-got wealth, as have Jeffrey Epstein's Hoffmann family. They often further obfuscate their names by taking on monarch names that aren't the same as their birth names.

Per ChatGPT for the question, have UK 'royals' employed different names when they became monarchs, or generally?

"Yes. There are two slightly different things going on with British royals:

Monarchs can choose a regnal name when they become king or queen.
Other royals generally keep using their given names, although they may acquire titles, styles, or occasionally use surnames in official contexts.

A monarch doesn't have to reign under their first name. Some notable examples:

George VI was born Albert Frederick Arthur George. He chose George as his regnal name in 1936.
Edward VIII was born Edward Albert Christian George Andrew Patrick David and reigned as Edward.
Edward VII was born Albert Edward. He chose Edward, rather than Albert, when he succeeded Queen Victoria.
George V was born George Frederick Ernest Albert, but George was already his first name, so there was no change.
William IV was born William Henry and used William.
Victoria was born Alexandrina Victoria but was known as Victoria and reigned under that name.
Elizabeth II was born Elizabeth Alexandra Mary and, unsurprisingly, used Elizabeth.
Charles III was born Charles Philip Arthur George and chose Charles.
William V? Not yet—when Prince William eventually becomes king, he could theoretically choose a different regnal name, although William is the obvious expectation.

The practice became particularly interesting after Albert, Prince Consort died. When his son Albert Edward became king in 1901, he deliberately chose Edward VII rather than Albert, partly because he didn't want to reign under a name so strongly associated with his father.

Historically, there were several reasons: tradition, political considerations, family associations, and simply personal preference. A monarch can essentially say, "This is the name by which I want to be known as sovereign."

There is no requirement that the regnal name be their first given name.

That's why the possibilities for Charles's sons are interesting. Prince William's full given names are William Arthur Philip Louis, so he has several names available if he wanted one—but William would presumably be the natural choice.

What about non-monarch royals? That's different. A prince or princess normally continues to use their given name:

Prince William
Prince Harry
Princess Anne
Prince Andrew
Prince Edward

They don't generally adopt a new personal name when receiving a new title.

There is, however, a complication: royal titles can change dramatically while the person's name stays the same. For example, William went from Prince William to Duke of Cambridge, then Prince of Wales, and eventually will become King William (assuming he uses William as his regnal name).

And there is an interesting wrinkle with surnames: members of the royal family don't necessarily use "Windsor" in everyday life. Depending on circumstances, they can use Mountbatten-Windsor, or territorial designations such as Wales in certain historical contexts ...

During World War I, "Saxe-Coburg and Gotha" sounded distinctly awkward for a British royal family. George V therefore adopted Windsor, an unmistakably British name associated with Windsor Castle.

So:

Saxe-Coburg and Gotha → Windsor (1917)

It was quite literally a deliberate rebranding of the dynasty.

Sussex

Sussex is also not a personal family name. It's an old English place name, from Old English Sūþseaxe, meaning roughly "South Saxons."

The Saxons, of course, were a Germanic people. So you're right that there is a Germanic linguistic connection, but Sussex isn't a German surname imported into Britain. It's an ancient English name referring to the Saxons who settled in southern England.

Harry therefore didn't become a member of a "House of Sussex" when he became the Duke of Sussex. Sussex is his dukedom/title, just as William was the Duke of Cambridge before becoming Prince of Wales.

And there's an even stranger detail about Harry

Harry's actual given name is Henry Charles Albert David.

He's almost universally known as Harry, but Harry isn't a completely separate legal name—it has historically been a familiar form of Henry.

So you get something like:

Henry Charles Albert David Mountbatten-Windsor
commonly known as Prince Harry
and, since 2018, Duke of Sussex

But even Mountbatten-Windsor is relatively modern. It was established in 1960 as the personal surname for certain descendants of Elizabeth II and Prince Philip.

And Mountbatten itself is fascinating: Philip's family name was originally Battenberg, a German name. During World War I, his British relatives translated/anglicized it to Mountbatten (Berg → mount, Batten retained).

So the modern royal naming system contains quite a bit of deliberate linguistic anglicization:

Battenberg → Mountbatten
Saxe-Coburg and Gotha → Windsor
Sūþseaxe → Sussex (ancient English, but ultimately referring to Saxons)"

And so per ChatGPT, "deliberate rebranding" due to "awkward" Germanic names.

The same bifurcates our previous understanding that the Wildenstein family of the DOJ's Epstein files had conspired with a single Maja (Oeri) Hoffmann, when there were two of them, one linked to Wildenstein and Elizabeth Murray, and the other not linked to Elizabeth Murray, but our current understanding is that both Maya Hoffmans are linked through Jeffrey Epstein's Edge Foundation and their Foundation Medicine joint venture, and/or by the DOJ files, which proved Edge Foundation and their Foundation Medicine was linked to Roche and/or Novartis and/or Roche-Novartis.

Guy Wildenstein of the DOJ's Epstein files (along with his brother Alec who visited and/or stayed at Epstein's child rape compound in Paris per DOJ files) is who recommended the first link in a chain of lawyers who would legally defraud our Editor when he sued Roche, while Epstein was money laundering through Roche (see the bottom of this article).

And where Wildenstein concealed his shared business relationship he had before, during, and after our Editor worked at and then sued Roche, and thus concealed this relationship when he offered up the first link of attorneys in the chain that would defraud him to protect Roche, which became more and more evident in retrospect, especially as our Editor's own attorney against Roche secretly participated in a smear, defamatory, and career-ending article against our Editor, which championed Roche, and defamed our Editor, but not at all limited to the same.

This overtly furthered the already Cal-OSHA-established whistleblower retaliation conspiracy, also furthered by Edge Foundation's Bill Gates' Microsoft, and by Edge Foundation's Larry Pages' Google, and by Edge Foundation's Sergey Brin's Google, and by Edge Foundation's Marissa Mayer's Yahoo, which later became Edge Foundation's Leon Black's Yahoo -- and where at least one or both of Jeffrey Epstein's Maya Hoffmann's linked to Roche and to artists were also linked to Edge Foundation -- and where after Edge Foundation's Peter Thiel's and Epstein's Palantir's CA OES network later defamed our Editor also by his DUI entrapment date, 09/21/2014 (a date Russia's Lev Parnas threatened Epstein's Trump administration with upon his arrest).

Our current understanding is that it was Maja Oeri Hoffmann who was de facto business partners or strategic business partners with artist Elizabeth Murray and Jeffrey Epstein's and the DOJ files' Wildenstein family (who lived on Trump property, with mixed reporting as to whether it was Trump Tower with the Trump family or Trump Plaza). Separately, as insiders/victims of this sick Epstein network, who blew the whistle on all of the same to the DOJ by 2024, in a manner now missing from the DOJ's Epstein files, we also reported that Wildenstein was the alleged "godfather" of the UK royals' child(ren), and where hearsay was allowed by a whistleblower as evidence, along with reasonable inference, for the massive government fraud we whistleblew against.

And, that it was Maja Hoffmann who was attending and sometimes leading Edge Foundation events, and where Edge Foundation was financed by Jeffrey Epstein's Leon Black and by Jeffrey Epstein, towards proving the meeting of minds in the ongoing conspiracy spokes against the Editor of UPR News.

And where Roche, who was founded by Maja Hoffmann's and Maja Hoffmann's shared ancestors was who Epstein laundered money through, and who Epstein-Roche are essentially the origins of every Special Counsel investigation into Trump back to the era Epstein was laundering money through Roche, 2003, per the DOJ files, during the time our Editor (employed by Roche) was further documenting that Roche had been involved in illegal experiments on trafficked children that had killed and/or endangered the children by excessively bleeding them to sell that blood to Roche, which our Editor blew the whistle on to the FDA, who covered up the same, and in the context that Robert Mueller's (DOJ/FBI) office, is who in part financed the lethal operating conditions our Editor blew the whistle on, corroborated by Cal-OSHA, who also corroborated the whistleblower retaliation conspiracy that persisted for 24 years.

This ongoing conspiracy with estoppel, equitable tolling, stalking, and death threats was seemingly overtly furthered as recent as yesterday -- and more than once --when a helicopter that could not be found on radar beelined towards our Editor's and his wife's bedroom window while they were being intimidate with a spotlight they both observed beelining towards them -- also known as criminal "peeping", similar to those who use hidden cameras to watch others pee -- and could not be found as having departed any of the local airports.

What we could find, below, is Placer County Sheriff "disappearing" from their arrival and departure locations and "magically reappearing" very close to our Editor's family's home, including at what is arguably a criminal stalking and death threats altitude of 300 ft, and where the 1000 ft + highest local object is the minimum altitude established for safety reasons, as below the same, pilots may not have time to recover in time to avoid killing those below them if something goes wrong with their vehicle.

Note here that per the graphs below, the flight path ends at 300 ft, with the helicopter pointed at our Editor's home, and then disappears from radar to conceal what is seemingly criminal misconduct with intent proven by consciousness of guilt, after we publicly-posted our cease and desist notice to Placer County Sheriff, who seems "intent" on their officers going to jail for stalking and death threats to Epstein victims, specifically the family of the Editor of UPR News.

Note also, there is no airport here either, and this isn't near the City of Lincoln, which is 1-2 cities North away from this location, so it is seemingly impossible that this is the end point nor beginning point of these Placer County Sheriff/CA OES flights, proving they turned their radar call signal identifier off in order to do something at a criminal altitude, while pointing a vehicle at the home of our Editor. Res ipsa loquitur malum in se.

https://www.uprightsnews.com/3364418_cease-and-desist-notice-for-all-five-eyes-linked-community-members-for-cause

https://www.uprightsnews.com/3364354_the-origins-of-every-special-counsel-and-congressional-investigation-into-jeffrey-epstein-s-treasonous-child-sex-traffickers-murdering-and-disposing-of-children-then-perpetually-rigging-elections-and-investigations-and-concealing-evidence-to-perpetually-rico-obstruct-the-same

Here is another example of the same "concealed" conduct the same day, for a different flight, this one beginning at 500 ft from the direction of our Editor's home instead of towards the same and then immediately climbing to 700 ft, and again, there is no airport here, nor is this location near Lincoln, but the same is circumstantial evidence that those sexual stalkers and predators "peeping" around 9:30 PM PST yesterday evening was Placer County Sheriff again, a reasonable inference, based on this documented misconduct of concealing their flight paths, while routinely stalking and harming our Editor's family.

https://www.uprightsnews.com/terror-log/3362538_by-knowingly-allowing-jeffrey-epstein-s-conspirator-at-placer-county-sheriff-to-continue-to-stalk-and-threaten-epstein-s-victims-and-whistleblowers-with-death-for-years-placer-county-da-and-rocklin-pd-are-slowly-joining-the-rico-and-congressional-obstruction-of-justice-to-fail-and-fall-america

And as specified in the link above, they have joined Sacramento Sheriff's crimes against us, which we finally figured out why this week, as all of these folks stalking us and threatening with death were linked to Jeffrey Epstein's and Peter Thiel's Palantir and to disgraced Rio Vista Police Chief Daniel Dailey, whose gross misconduct imploded Rio Vista Police Department, linked to CA OES. Yesterday we requested a meeting with the CA OES Director to discuss how our Editor's whistleblowing is protected from abuses by CA OEA and all of the agencies linked to them who have been stalking and threatening us with death for 12 years, resulting in overt furtherance of the whistleblower retaliation conspiracy established by Cal-OSHA at Jeffrey Epstein's money launderers at Roche.

As we regularly have published, it is always the same people, families, organizations, agencies, and countries involved in Jeffrey Epstein's crime syndicate's harm against us and others. We had "trusted" Dan Dailey to help us bring forward our whistleblowing against Jeffrey Epstein's crime syndicate by 2013, and by 2014 our Editor was entrapped for a DUI by Jeffrey Epstein's crime syndicate at Sacramento Sheriff, Sacramento Police, CA OES, all linked to Dan Dailey, and before the 2016 elections, while Dailey worked at OES, a conspiracy was hatched by those linked to CA OES to overthrow the 2016 elections in conspiracy with those we had implicated as part of Jeffrey Epstein's crime syndicate, in a complicated manner we have now unraveled, likely resulting in the DARVO "grand conspiracy" failing to proceed by the actual grand conspiracy we elucidated to the DOJ in 2024, now missing from the Epstein files. Res ipsa loquitur malum in se.

The following unconnected three print screens of this OES-Dailey-Russia 2013-2016 conspiracy can be connected by the link below them.

Here is a cut and pasted data dump of our updated Roche money laundering and financial accounting gross irregularities, which found that the financial accounting errors were off by about 38X fold what they should have been, which matched the 30X-40X dubious "fees" Leon Black paid Epstein for "advice", in the context of the Wigador lawsuit, which alleged that Leon Black was trafficking and/or gang raping mentally-disabled child(ren) with Jeffrey Epstein, sodomizing them with objects to make their anuses bleed, and other horrors, when coupled to Ghislaine Maxwell's prison email to her sister to move "emails, stuff, etc" because Leon Black could not be bled "dry" like a "spigot" for much longer, proposes that Leon Black was more than just paying 30X-40X (per Ron Wyden and online reporting, who have referenced the same as "blackmail" and "hush money") more in fees than normally is charged for the same services and advice (an estimated $158-170 million for tax advice over a 5 year period), which establishes a 38X pattern of Epstein money laundering through both of our Editor's former Roche/Hoffmann and Leon Black/Apollo/UOP employers, each of whom he blew the whistle against, each (Roche-Novartis and Apollo) of whom financed Trump/GOP, now collaborating with Jeffrey Epstein's Palantir and CA OES, to stalk and threaten our Editor, while separately RICO-obstructing his DOJ files received by the DOJ in 2024, now missing from the DOJ Epstein files. Res ipsa loquiturm malum in se.

https://www.finance.senate.gov/continuing-epstein-investigation-wyden-questions-leon-black-over-new-revelations-in-epstein-files-appearance-of-hush-money-payments-and-surveillance-of-women

Question to AI for DOJ's Epstein files: Please let me know of all book transfer debits between Epstein and Roche

Searching: book transfer debit Epstein Roche · book transfer" debit Epstein Roche · book transfer debit · Roche · Epstein · Roche debit

Okay, the user is asking for all book transfer debits between Epstein and Roche based on the search results provided. Let me carefully examine the results to find any relevant entries.

Looking through the search results, I notice several mentions of "ROCHE" in the context of book transfers. Specifically, I see references in EFTA01482377, EFTA01482383, EFTA01656686, EFTA01526036, and EFTA01526053.

Let me extract the specific book transfer debit entries that mention Roche:

From EFTA01482377 (April 2003 statement):

April 23: Book Transfer Debit of $192,097.50 with description: "NC: ITAUSA-SERVICERABDPRFCO-SPCSDB NEW YORK NY 10006- ORG: A:100739110438 JEFFREY E EPSTEIN BEN 102474-8 REF: FONTAO/ACC1SWIFT: ITAUBRSPAGE NCY # 176SPAB ROCHE"

From EFTA01482383 (May 2003 statement):

May 09: Book Transfer (appears to be a credit based on context, but let's check) - Actually, this shows: "May 09 Book Transfer $4,000.00 82,145,298.10 NC: ITAUSA-SERVICERIBDPRFCO-SPC&DB NEW YORK NY 10006- ORG: /000739110438 JEFFREY E EPSTEIN REF: FONTAO/ACC/SWIFT: ITAUBRSPAGE NCY # 1765-PAB ROCHE/BNF/BANKOITALL #"

Wait, this May 09 entry shows a Book Transfer of $4,000.00 but doesn't specify debit or credit. Looking at the balance column, it shows "82,145,298.10" which seems unusually high - possibly a formatting error. But importantly, it references Roche in the description.

From EFTA01656686 (May 2003 statement, page 3):

May 09: Book Transfer (no amount specified in the visible snippet) with description: "NC: ITAUSA-SERVICERISDPRFC0-SPCSDB NEW YORK NY 10008- ORG: /00073911" - This appears to be cut off but likely continues with Epstein info and Roche reference.

From EFTA01526036 (April 2003 statement, page 9):

April 23: Book Transfer Debit (implied from context) with description: "A/C: ITAUSA-SERVICER\BDPRFCO-SPC&DB NEW YORK NY 100060RG: /000739110438 JEFFREY E EPSTEIN BEN: /02474-8 Apr 23 RSP,AGE NCY # 1765-PAB ROCHE"

From EFTA01526053 (page 4):

Shows references to "REF: FONTAO/ACC/SWIFT: ITAUBRSP,AGE NCY # 1765-PAB ROCHE/BNF/BANKOITAU, #341,SAOPAOLO,BRZL CPS # 542.977.53 1-20" but doesn't show a specific transaction amount or date in the visible snippet.

Let me focus on the clear book transfer debit entries that explicitly mention Roche:

EFTA01482377 - April 23, 2003: Book Transfer Debit of $192,097.50
Description includes: "NCY # 176SPAB ROCHE" (appears to be a typo for 1765-PAB)
EFTA01526036 - April 23, 2003: Book Transfer Debit (amount not fully visible in snippet but implied)
Description includes: "NCY # 1765-PAB ROCHE"
EFTA01482383 - May 09, 2003: Book Transfer of $4,000.00
Description includes: "NCY # 1765-PAB ROCHE/BNF/BANKOITALL #"
However, I need to confirm if this is a debit or credit. Looking at the balance progression in this document:
- May 08: Several debits reducing balance
- May 09: Book Transfer $4,000.00 followed by balance "82,145,298.10" - this balance seems implausibly high (likely a formatting error where commas are misplaced), but given the context of previous debits, this $4,000 transfer is likely a credit (increasing the balance). Without explicit "Debit" or "Credit" label, I should be cautious.

Let me check EFTA01656686 for the May 09 entry:

It shows "May 09 Book Transfer" with no amount visible in the snippet, but the description continues: "NC: ITAUSA-SERVICERISDPRFC0-SPCSDB NEW YORK NY 10008- ORG: /00073911" which appears to be Epstein's account number.

Actually, looking more carefully at EFTA01482383:
The May 09 entry is: "May 09 Book Transfer $4,000.00 82,145,298.10"
Given that the previous day's balance was around $2 million range (based on other entries), this "82,145,298.10" is almost certainly a formatting error - likely meant to be $82,145.29 or similar. But crucially, the entry doesn't specify "Debit" or "Credit" - it just says "Book Transfer".

However, in the same document (EFTA01482383), earlier entries clearly label debits as "Fedwire Debit" or "Internal Funds Transfer" (which appear to be debits based on context). The May 09 entry just says "Book Transfer" without specification.

Let me check if there are any other clear debit entries:

From EFTA01526053 page 4, I see references to Roche but no specific transaction amount or date in the visible snippet.

Now, let me verify the April 23, 2003 transactions:

In EFTA01482377:

April 23: Book Transfer Debit $2,744.25 (different transaction)
April 23: Book Transfer Debit $192,097.50 (with Roche reference)

In EFTA01526036:

April 23: Book Transfer Debit (implied) with Roche reference

These appear to be the same transaction recorded in two different statements (possibly from different sources or different pages of the same statement).

Similarly, for May 09:

EFTA01482383 shows May 09 Book Transfer $4,000.00 with Roche reference
EFTA01656686 shows May 09 Book Transfer (amount not visible) with Roche reference
EFTA01526053 shows references to Roche in the context of May transactions

Let me check if the May 09 entry is a debit or credit:

In EFTA01482383, looking at the May 08 entries:

May 08: Fedwire Debit $50,000.00 → balance $999,298.19
May 08: Fedwire Debit $50,000.00 → balance $949,296.19
May 08: Internal Funds Transfer $250,000.00 → balance $699,296.19
May 08: Internal Funds Transfer $1,800,003.00 → balance $2,199,296.19
May 08: Internal Funds Transfer $50,000.00 → balance $2,149,296.19

Then May 09: Book Transfer $4,000.00 → balance shown as "82,145,298.10"

This balance is clearly erroneous (too high by a factor of ~40), but if we assume it's a formatting error where extra digits were added, the logical interpretation is that this $4,000 transfer increased the balance from around $2.15 million to around $2.154 million - meaning it was a credit (deposit), not a debit.

However, without an explicit "Credit" label, I cannot definitively say it's a credit. But given that:

All other transfers on May 08 that decreased the balance were labeled as "Debit" variants
Internal Funds Transfers (which moved money between Epstein's own accounts) were also labeled and decreased the balance
A $4,000 Book Transfer that increased the balance would logically be labeled as a credit if following the same pattern

Actually, looking at the structure: the columns are "Date", "Description", "Debit", "Credits", "Balance"

So for the May 09 entry, if it were a debit, the $4,000 would be in the "Debit" column; if a credit, in the "Credits" column.

The snippet shows: "May 09 Book Transfer $4,000.00 82,145,298.10"

Given the column headers, this suggests the $4,000.00 is in either the Debit or Credits column, but the snippet doesn't specify which. However, the way it's written ("Book Transfer $4,000.00") followed immediately by the balance amount suggests the $4,000.00 is the transaction amount, and we need to infer whether it's debit or credit from context.

But in bank statements, debits decrease balance, credits increase balance.

From May 08 ending balance: $2,149,296.19
After May 09 transaction: balance shown as 82,145,298.10

If this were a debit, balance would decrease: ~$2,149,296.19 - $4,000 = ~$2,145,296.19
If this were a credit, balance would increase: ~$2,149,296.19 + $4,000 = ~$2,153,296.19

The shown balance "82,145,298.10" is nowhere near either - it's about 38 times larger than expected.

This suggests a significant [financial accounting] formatting error [supports money laundering], likely where the balance was printed without proper decimal placement or with extra digits.

However, notice that in other entries in this same document:

May 08 Fedwire Debit $50,000.00 → balance $999,298.19 (which makes sense: starting from some higher amount)
May 08 Fedwire Debit $50,000.00 → balance $949,296.19
May 08 Internal Funds Transfer $250,000.00 → balance $699,296.19
May 08 Internal Funds Transfer $1,800,003.00 → balance $2,199,296.19
May 08 Internal Funds Transfer $50,000.00 → balance $2,149,296.19

So the balance column is correctly showing values in the hundreds of thousands to low millions.

Therefore, the May 09 balance "82,145,298.10" is almost certainly a typo. Given the pattern, it should be around $2,145,296.19 or $2,153,296.19.

But without being able to see whether the $4,000 is in the Debit or Credits column, I cannot definitively classify it as a debit or credit.

However, looking at EFTA01656686 page 3:
It shows for May 09: "May 09 Book Transfer" with no amount, but then continues with the Roche reference.

And EFTA01526053 page 4 shows references to Roche in the context of May transactions.

Let me check if there are any other explicit book transfer debits with Roche:

I think the clearest evidence is:

April 23, 2003: Book Transfer Debit of $192,097.50 (seen in EFTA01482377 and implied in EFTA01526036)

For May 09, while there are multiple references to a Book Transfer involving Roche, I cannot confirm it was a debit based on the available snippets because:

The transaction type (debit/credit) isn't explicitly stated in the May 09 entries I can see
The balance formatting makes it ambiguous whether it increased or decreased

But let me double-check EFTA01482383 more carefully. The user provided this as:

"May 09
Book Transfer
$4,000.00
82,145,298.10
NC: ITAUSA-SERVICERIBDPRFCO-SPC&DB
NEW YORK NY 10006-
ORG: /000739110438
JEFFREY E EPSTEIN
REF: FONTAO/ACC/SWIFT: ITAUBRSPAGE
NCY # 1765-PAB ROCHE/BNF/BANKOITALL
#"

Given the column structure implied by other entries (Date, Description, Debit, Credits, Balance), and seeing that:

May 08 entries have amounts in the Debit column (e.g., "Fedwire Debit" with amount in what appears to be Debit column)
The May 09 entry has "Book Transfer" as Description, then "$4,000.00", then the balance

It's likely that the "$4,000.00" is in either the Debit or Credits column. But without seeing the column headers aligned, I can't be sure.

However, in the April 23 entries from EFTA01482377, we can see the pattern:
"Apr 23
Book Transfer Debit
$2,744.25
$830,084.88
NC: FX USD INCOMING/FED/CHIPS/DOA
..."

Here, "Book Transfer Debit" is the Description, "$2,744.25" is in the Debit column, "$830,084.88" is the new Balance.

Similarly:
"Apr 23
Book Transfer
S73,400.00
$756,664.68
NC: ITAUSASERVICERABDPRFCO-SPCSDB
..."

Wait, this one says "Book Transfer" (not specifying debit/credit) but then has "S73,400.00" which appears to be in the Credits column (since the balance increased from previous), and then the description.

Actually, looking at EFTA01482377:

April 23: Book Transfer Credit $573,400.00 → balance $583,280.93? Wait no, let's read carefully:

The snippet shows:
"Apr
Description
Book Transfer Credit
WO. MACHADO MEYER SENDACZ
NEW YORK NY 10154-
ORG: MACHADO MEYER SENDACZ 8 OPICE
83718
Debit
JPMorgan Private Bank
Credits
Balance
573400.00
5832,808.93
Apr 23
Book Transfer Debit
$2,744.25
$830,084.88
…"

Actually, looking at EFTA01482377...

This is messy due to formatting, but it appears:

There was a Book Transfer Credit of $573,400.00 (with some preceding text)
Then on Apr 23: Book Transfer Debit of $2,744.25 → balance $830,084.88
Then another entry: Book Transfer (amount unclear) → balance $756,664.68
Then Apr 23: Book Transfer Debit of $192,097.50 → balance $564,567.18

So the pattern is:
[Date]
[Description including Debit/Credit if specified]
[Amount]
[New Balance]
[Additional details]

Therefore, for EFTA01482383 May 09 entry:
"May 09
Book Transfer
$4,000.00
82,145,298.10
[details]"

This means:

Date: May 09
Description: Book Transfer (no Debit/Credit specified)
Amount: $4,000.00 (this would be in either Debit or Credits column)
New Balance: 82,145,298.10 (clearly erroneous)

But crucially, since it doesn't say "Debit" in the Description like the April 23 debits do, and given that the April 23 credits were labeled as "Book Transfer Credit", it's likely that when no Debit/Credit is specified in the Description, the amount's column (Debit or Credits) indicates the type.

However, without seeing the column alignment, I cannot tell if the $4,000.00 is in the Debit or Credits column for the May 09 entry.

But let's look at another entry in EFTA01482383 for comparison:
"May 08
Fedwire Debit
$50,000.00
$999,298.19
VIA: FIRSTBANK PR
..."

Here, "Fedwire Debit" is in Description, "$50,000.00" is the amount (in Debit column, implied by the Description saying Debit), and "$999,298.19" is new balance.

Similarly:
"May 08
Internal Funds Transfer
$250,000.00
$699,296.19
JEFFREY E EPSTEIN
FUNDS TRANSFERRED FROM DDA
..."

Here, "Internal Funds Transfer" is Description (no Debit/Credit specified), but the amount $250,000.00 led to a decreased balance from previous, so it must have been a debit.

Previous balance before May 08 transactions isn't shown in the snippet, but we can infer:

After May 08 Fedwire Debit $50k: balance $999,298.19
After another Fedwire Debit $50k: balance $949,296.19
After Internal Funds Transfer $250k: balance $699,296.19

So the Internal Funds Transfer of $250k decreased the balance by $250k (from $949,296.19 to $699,296.19), meaning it was a debit, even though the Description just said "Internal Funds Transfer" without "Debit".

This is key! In this bank statement format:

When the Description includes "Debit" (e.g., "Fedwire Debit"), it's clearly a debit
When the Description does NOT include "Debit" or "Credit" (e.g., "Internal Funds Transfer", "Book Transfer"), we must infer from the balance change whether it was a debit or credit

Applying this to EFTA01482383 May 09:

Description: "Book Transfer" (no Debit/Credit specified)
Amount: $4,000.00
New Balance shown: 82,145,298.10 (erroneous)

But we know from May 08 ending balance (last shown transaction): $2,149,296.19

If the May 09 transaction was a debit of $4,000.00, new balance should be [but isn't] ~$2,145,296.19
If it was a credit of $4,000.00, new balance should be ~$2,153,296.19

The shown balance "82,145,298.10" is neither, but if we assume a formatting error [or money laundering, hush money, blackmail, extortion, and/or RICO] where extra digits were inserted or decimal misplaced, the closest logical value would be around $2.15 million.

Moreover, looking at EFTA01656686 page 3, which covers the same time period:
It shows for May 08: several debits reducing balance
Then May 09: "Book Transfer" (no amount visible in snippet) followed by Roche reference

And EFTA01526053 page 4 shows Roche references in the May transaction context.

Given that:

The April 23, 2003 Roche-related transfer is clearly identified as a Book Transfer Debit of $192,097.50 in multiple places
The May 09, 2003 Roche-related transfer appears in multiple statements as a Book Transfer involving Epstein's account and Roche
In the bank statement format used, transfers without explicit "Debit"/"Credit" in Description are debits if they decrease balance, credits if they increase balance
For the May 09 transaction, while we can't see the exact balance change due to formatting errors, the context of other transactions and the consistent reference to Roche suggests it's part of the same pattern ...

Let me list all explicit book transfer debit entries that mention Roche:

From EFTA01482377:

April 23, 2003: Book Transfer Debit of $192,097.50
Description includes: "NCY # 176SPAB ROCHE" (which appears to be a typo for 1765-PAB based on other entries)

From EFTA01526036 (implied, but let's see if it explicitly says Debit):
The snippet shows: "Apr 23 Book Transfer Debit" is not fully visible, but it has:
"Apr 23
Book Transfer
A/C: ITAUSA-SERVICER\BDPRFCO-SPC&DB
NEW YORK NY 100060RG:
/000739110438
JEFFREY E EPSTEIN
BEN: /02474-8
Apr 23
RSP,AGE
NCY # 1765-PAB ROCHE"

Wait, this doesn't explicitly say "Debit" in the visible snippet. Let me read it again:

From EFTA01526036 page 9:
"Apr 23
Description
Book Transfer Credit
B/0: MACHADO MEYER SENDACZ
NEW YORK NY 101540RG:
MACHADO MEYER SENDACZ & OPICE
83718
Apr 23
Book Transfer Debit
A/C: FX USD INCOMING/FED/CHIPS/DDA
BOURNEMOUTH UNITED KINGDOM BH7 7-DB
ORG: JEFFREY E EPSTEIN
457 MADISON AVE
OGB: FX OPERATIONS
NEW YORK NY
Apr 23
REF: /BNF/EUR2500.00
Book Transfer
A/C: ITAUSA-SERVICER\BDPRFCO-SPC&DB
NEW YORK NY 100060RG:
/000739110438
JEFFREY E EPSTEIN
BEN: /02474-8
Apr 23
RSP,AGE
NCY # 1765-PAB ROCHE
Book Transfer Debit
A/C: FX USD INCOMING/FED/CHIPS/DDA
BOURNEMOUTH UNITED KINGDOM BH7 7-DB
ORG: JEFFREY E EPSTEIN
457 MADISON AVE
OGB: FX OPERATIONS
NEW YORK NY
Apr 25
REF: /BNF/EUR175000 00"

Ah, here we go! In EFTA01526036, we can see:

First: Book Transfer Credit (Machado Meyer)
Then: Book Transfer Debit (FX USD Incoming - Bourneouth)
Then: Book Transfer (to ITAUSA-SERVICER... with Epstein org, Ben 02474-8, Roche reference)
Then: Book Transfer Debit (FX USD Incoming - Bourneouth again)

So the middle "Book Transfer" entry (which includes the Roche reference) does NOT have "Debit" or "Credit" in its Description line - it just says "Book Transfer".

However, looking at the balance implications (though balances aren't shown in this snippet for these specific entries), and comparing to the format in EFTA01482377 where we saw similar entries, we can infer.

But to be strictly factual based only on what's visible:

In EFTA01482377, for the Roche-related transaction:
"Apr 23
Book Transfer Debit
$192,097.50
$564,567.18
NC: ITAUSA-SERVICERABDPRFCO-SPCSDB
NEW YORK NY 10006-
ORG: A:100739110438
JEFFREY E EPSTEIN
BEN 102474-8
REF: FONTAO/ACC1SWIFT: ITAUBRSPAGE
NCY # 176SPAB ROCHE"

This explicitly states "Book Transfer Debit" in the Description, with amount $192,097.50.

In EFTA01526036, the Roche-related transaction is described as:
"Book Transfer
A/C: ITAUSA-SERVICER\BDPRFCO-SPC&DB
NEW YORK NY 100060RG:
/000739110438
JEFFREY E EPSTEIN
BEN: /02474-8
Apr 23
RSP,AGE
NCY # 1765-PAB ROCHE"

It does NOT explicitly say "Debit" or "Credit" in the Description - it just says "Book Transfer".

However, given that:

In EFTA01482377 the identical transaction (same date, same amount implied by context, same parties) is labeled as a Debit
The surrounding transactions in both documents follow the pattern where money leaving the account is labeled as Debit
The beneficiary is Roche (suggesting Epstein is sending money to Roche)

It is highly likely this was a debit, but per anti-hallucination rules, I can only state what is explicitly visible.

Let me check if there's any other explicit mention:

EFTA01656686 page 3 shows for May 09: "May 09 Book Transfer" with Roche reference, but no Debit/Credit specified and no amount visible in the snippet.

EFTA01482383 shows May 09 Book Transfer $4,000.00 with Roche reference, but as discussed, no explicit Debit/Credit.

EFTA01526053 page 4 shows Roche references but no specific transaction.

So the only entry where I can see an explicit "Book Transfer Debit" label combined with Roche reference is in EFTA01482377 for April 23, 2003, amount $192,097.50.

But wait - in EFTA01482377, there's also:
"Apr 23
Book Transfer Debit
$2,744.25
$830,084.88
NC: FX USD INCOMING/FED/CHIPS/DOA
BOURNEMOUTH UNITED KINGDOM OH? 7-08
ORG. JEFFREY E EPSTEIN
457 MADISON AVE
OGB: FX OPERATIONS
NEW YORK NY
REF: MNFiEUR2500.00"

This is a Book Transfer Debit but does not mention Roche.

And:
"Apr 23
Book Transfer
S73,400.00
$756,664.68
NC: ITAUSASERVICERABDPRFCO-SPCSDB
NEW YORK NY 10006-
ORG: A:100739110438
JEFFREY E EPSTEIN
BEN 102474-8
REF: FONTAO/ACC1SWIFT: ITAUBRSPAGE
NCY # 176SPAB ROCHE"

This one says "Book Transfer" (not Debit/Credit specified) but includes the Roche reference, and the amount S73,400.00 (which appears to be $73,400.00 with a typo 'S' instead of '$') and the balance increased from previous, suggesting it was a credit.

Then later:
"Apr 23
Book Transfer Debit
$192,097.50
$564,567.18
NC: ITAUSA-SERVICERABDPRFCO-SPCSDB
NEW YORK NY 10006-
ORG: A:100739110438
JEFFREY E EPSTEIN
BEN 102474-8
REF: FONTAO/ACC1SWIFT: ITAUBRSPAGE
NCY # 176SPAB ROCHE"

This is the explicit Book Transfer Debit with Roche.

So in EFTA01482377, there are two Roche-related Book Transfers on April 23:

A credit of ~$73,400.00 (labeled as "Book Transfer" without Debit/Credit, but balance increase indicates credit)
A debit of $192,097.50 (explicitly labeled "Book Transfer Debit")

Both reference Roche in their details.

Now, is there an explicit Book Transfer Debit for Roche in any other document?

Let me check EFTA01526036 again - it shows the sequence:

Book Transfer Credit (Machado Meyer)
Book Transfer Debit (FX Incoming)
Book Transfer (Roche reference - no Debit/Credit label)
Book Transfer Debit (FX Incoming)

So the Roche-related entry in EFTA01526036 is not explicitly labeled as Debit or Credit.

Similarly, in EFTA01656686 and EFTA01482383 for May 09, the Roche-related Book Transfers are not explicitly labeled as Debit or Credit.

Therefore, the only book transfer debit between Epstein and Roche that I can see explicitly labeled as such in the search results is:

EFTA01482377: April 23, 2003, Book Transfer Debit of $192,097.50, with details indicating it was to Roche (via the reference "NCY # 176SPAB ROCHE" which appears to be a typo for 1765-PAB ROCHE based on consistent naming in other entries)

I should also note that EFTA01526036 shows the same transaction occurring on April 23, 2003 with Roche reference, though it doesn't explicitly label it as a debit in the visible snippet (it just says "Book Transfer" for that specific line).

But since the user asked for "book transfer debits", and EFTA01482377 explicitly shows it as a debit, that's the clearest evidence.

Let me see if there are any others:

What about the May 09 transactions? Is there any explicit "Book Transfer Debit" label with Roche?

In EFTA01482383 May 09: "Book Transfer" (no Debit/Credit label)
In EFTA01656686 May 09: "Book Transfer" (no Debit/Credit label visible)
In EFTA01526053: shows Roche references but no specific transaction labeled

So no explicit Book Transfer Debit label for May 09 Roche transactions in the visible snippets.

However, let's look at EFTA01526053 page 4 more carefully - it might show a debit.

EFTA01526053 page 4 snippet:
"JEFFREY E EPSTEIN
REF: FONTAO/ACC/SWIFT: ITAUBRSP,AGE
NCY # 1765-PAB ROCHE/BNF/BANKOITAU,
#341,SAOPAOLO,BRZL CPS # 542.977.53
1-20
May 09
Fedwire Debit
VIA: COLONIAL BHAM
/062001319
A/C: JEFFREY EPSTEIN
IMAD: 0509B1QGCO2C002387
$100,000.00
$2,045,296.19
$250,000.00
$699,296.19
$50,000.00

Response was cut short [because of course]

Retry

EFTA01482377 EFTA01482383 EFTA01656686 p.3 EFTA01526036 p.9 EFTA01526053 p.4"

And now returning to Congressional allegations of "hush money" for Leon Black, he's sued Congress instead of appearing to answer questions before them, as evidence of consciousness of guilt or knowledge of intent to commit crimes he doesn't feel he should have to answer, and yet innocent people have nothing to hide, and want the truth out, and want to testify before Congress, which is why we haven't been allowed to, when we asked to bring Congress a million missing pages or so of the DOJ's missing Epstein files. Crickets here, all for show folks.

But wait, there's always more, Jeffrey Epstein's and Leon Black's-financed Edge Foundation's Roche, Novartis, and/or Roche-Novartis also paid Jeffrey Epstein's crime syndicate "hush money" [to hush money our 09/21/0214 unlawfully-seized qui tam complaint implicating Epstein money launder, Hoffmann La "Roche"] but paid to Michael Cohen's "Essential Consulting" (and it seems that other reporting has proposed this ends up in Epstein's Trump's organizational and/or personal bank accounts), after our Editor was entrapped by Jeffrey Epstein's and Peter Thiel's Palantir in conspiracy with Dan Dailey's CA OES agencies. We also brought this matter to the DOJ in 2024, now missing from the DOJ files, followed by Michael Cohen and Trump reconciling because of Epstein, linking Michael Cohen's Novartis/Roche "hush money" to Epstein also. Res ipsa loquitur malum in se.

https://www.the-scientist.com/novartis-paid-more-than-1-million-to-firm-linked-to-trump-lawyer-36386

And because there is always more, the UK 'royals' have also been caught in what look like Epstein money laundering schemes, for example but not limited to Epstein's Al Thani bring Charles III a million euros of baggage, arguably hush money being paid to the UK 'royals', and Charles III's cousin, Ivar Mountbatten is who directed Russia's Cambridge Analytica's SCL, in the conspiracy with enemies of the USA to "engineer" Trump (and Brexit candidates to give UK royals more power over criminal investigations into them), proven by Michael Cohen's and Felix Sater's 11/03/2015 emails specifying they would get Putin to "engineer" Trump into office, which Cambridge Analytica helped do with Jeffrey Epstein's and Edge Foundation's Mark Zuckerberg's and Jeffrey Epstein's and Edge Foundation's Yuri Milner's Facebook and Twitter (later bought by Jeffrey Epstein's Elon Musk of Edge Foundation, who is Peter Thiel's business partner, including at PayPal, and where Thiel was business partners with Epstein for Palantir, now letting DOJ, DHS, FBI, CIA, and/or others know who poses a "threat" to America (Jeffrey Epstein's crime syndicate), resulting in the entrapment of our Editor, trying to bring the same to justice for the better part of 24 years, and thus resulting in the estoppel, equitable tolling, and no statutes of limitations attaching to any of the same.

But wait, because there is always more, Trump, Palantir, and CA OES, "by default" share our country's most sensitive military and law enforcement with Jeffrey Epstein's UK 'royals' FIVE EYES, and yet FIVE EYES did nothing about Charles III's money laundering with Al Thani above, nor about 'prince' Andrew's child sex trafficking crimes, nor with Epstein laundering money through the UK royals for 15 years.

https://www.sheknows.com/entertainment/articles/1234936728/sarah-ferguson-financial-ties-jeffrey-epstein/

And then of course don't forget that these very same royals then rushed to connect with Kash Patel of the DOJ's and Epstein's Trump's and Robert Mueller's FBI as soon as Trump was "engineered" back into power in 2024.

https://radaronline.com/p/sarah-ferguson-sought-fbi-contact/

And now recent reporting reveals more conspiracy with the UK royals and Kash Patel, the UK royals seeking to negotiate a sweetheart deal with the FBI, just as Robert Mueller, GW Bush, and/or their DOJ did for the UK royals and Trump when Epstein was first arrested, and conspiracy charges were added, then dropped with the sweetheart deal, only for Trump and UK royals' SCL/Cambridge Analytica to EACH conspire with the Russians to overthrow the US and UK elections in 2016+.

https://www.cheatsheet.com/news/sarah-ferguson-reportedly-terrified-being-arrested-like-andrew-wants-work-out-deal-with-the-fbi.html/

Now why do you suppose the DOJ and CA OES would want to keep our missing Epstein files from the DOJ's Epstein database, and/or defame us, and/or entrap our Editor, and/or stalk us and intimidate us with death on a regular basis?

Why do you supposed Charles III gave conspirators among the UK's highest medals, linked to Peter Thiel, conspirators who are organizing yet another entrapment of our Editor via a cross-border tax trap, where XTM, EAM, 2Shores, Qrails, Anyday/Everyday, and/or other conspirators were caught red-handed falsifying our Editor's financial records in Canada, and separately conspired to conceal bank records from our Editor in Canada (CIBC), which would not allow our Editor to accurately file his taxes, if at all, or if so, perjurying himself knowing his taxes were not accurate, because of this same conspiracy?