INVARCHIVES
HomeInvestigationsArchiveNewsletter
LoginSubscribe
Financial Crime

3,000 Documents: Paul Barrett's Oil Trades for Jeffrey Epstein

May 1, 2026·5 min read
3,000 Documents: Paul Barrett's Oil Trades for Jeffrey Epstein

Paul Barrett**, a Managing Director at JPMorgan Private Bank, structured oil options and derivatives for Jeffrey Epstein for at least eight years — and documents show the relationship continued long after Epstein's 2008 conviction, when Barrett was operating his own private firm.

More than 3,000 documents in the DOJ archive connect Barrett to Epstein's finances. The records span from 2010 through 2018 and detail direct trades, meeting requests, and an unspecified agreement Barrett sought to "finalize" in the final years of Epstein's life.

Get the full documents delivered to your inbox — subscribe to the InvArchives newsletter.

The JPMorgan Connection

Barrett held the title of Managing Director in JPMorgan Private Bank's Global Investment Opportunities Group, based at 40 West 57th Street in Manhattan. His CFA credential and group title positioned him as a sophisticated financial products specialist — not a generalist banker.

Document vol00010-efta01990051-pdf shows Barrett emailing Epstein directly at jeevacation@gmail.com on December 9, 2010, with real-time oil option pricing updates. "Oil option now bid at $45,000," Barrett wrote. Epstein responded with a single word: "sell." Barrett confirmed the execution minutes later: "Done at $48,000."

The exchange is casual, direct, and devoid of the compliance language typical of institutional trades. Barrett then added: "I think we work an order at 85 to initiate a new risk reversal to replace this."

Oil Derivatives and a Million-Barrel Position

By 2013, the scale of the trades had grown considerably. Document vol00010-efta01967093-pdf shows Barrett pitching Epstein a WTI Dual Directional oil note — a structured product offering uncapped upside on crude oil over a 53-week term.

"If oil is up 20% you are up 20%," Barrett explained. "If it is flat you are flat. If it is down 20% you are up 20%."

Epstein's response was characteristically blunt: "work sample if oil spikes?" Barrett replied the following day with detailed payoff scenarios at $80, $120, and $150 per barrel.

By August 2013, the positions had scaled significantly. Document vol00011-efta02720774-pdf shows Epstein asking Barrett about margin requirements for one million barrels of oil. Barrett calculated: "25pct * 93.5 strike * 1 million. So $23.3 million USD collateral." Epstein replied: "lets start at 250k barrels."

The same document shows Barrett delegating execution to his Vice President, Amanda Ens, while instructing her to call Epstein to "verbally confirm the Dodd Frank disclosures" — the post-2008 regulatory requirements governing derivatives transactions with institutional clients.

Vetting Hedge Funds on Epstein's Request

Document vol00010-efta01903093-pdf reveals Barrett acting as a resource for Epstein's investment network beyond JPMorgan's own products. In March 2013, Epstein wrote to Barrett about a fund manager named Ari Glass, who ran a fund called "Booth Bay" and cleared through UBS.

"There is a guy called ari glass, that has a fund called booth bay, a but sketchy, ask your prime broker offie to vet him," Epstein wrote.

Barrett immediately began searching JPMorgan's systems. "I need the fund name — Booth Bay does not come up on our systems anywhere," he replied. Epstein's next message simply said: "try one word." The exchange illustrates how Barrett functioned as an operational resource for Epstein's broader deal-making, not merely an investment adviser.

After JPMorgan: Alpha Group Capital

At some point after 2015, Barrett left JPMorgan and founded Alpha Group Capital LLC, based at 142 West 57th Street, 11th Floor, New York. The firm change did not end his relationship with Epstein.

Document vol00010-efta02210540-pdf shows Barrett, now writing from a personal iPhone, emailing Epstein in April 2017 seeking a meeting. "Can we meet on Monday to review everything and finalize our agreement?" Barrett wrote on April 28, 2017. The nature of that agreement is not specified in the document.

Epstein replied: "Wed." They settled on a 5:30 PM meeting that Wednesday.

Document EFTA02213136 — an internal alert dated May 5, 2017 — shows Epstein's staff asking: "does JE want to meet with Paul Barrett on Sat. or Sun? do we need Rich/Darren around?" The reference to "Rich/Darren" aligns with the names of Richard Kahn and Darren Indyke, Epstein's longtime financial and legal fixers.

The meetings continued into 2018. Document vol00011-efta02262049-pdf shows Barrett — now emailing from his Alpha Group Capital address — coordinating a meeting with Epstein through Lesley Groff in October 2018. Barrett wrote: "JE said he is around to meet this week. Can you find a time?" Groff confirmed a 5:00 PM slot.

This was approximately six months before Epstein's July 2019 arrest.

Why It Matters

Barrett's documents sit inside a larger pattern. JPMorgan maintained Epstein as a client for over a decade following his 2006 Florida investigation, a relationship that became the subject of a civil lawsuit by the U.S. Virgin Islands. The bank settled that lawsuit in 2023 for $75 million.

The documents show Barrett was not a peripheral figure. He was the primary JPMorgan contact for Epstein's oil derivatives — a segment of the portfolio that required ongoing, personalized service. When Barrett left the bank, he did not end the relationship; he took it with him.

The 3,000 documents bearing his name in the DOJ archive represent one of the denser individual footprints in the Epstein financial record. The specific terms of the 2017 "agreement" Barrett sought to finalize have not been publicly disclosed.

All individuals mentioned are presumed innocent unless proven guilty in a court of law.

Share this investigation

FacebookTwitter/X
This analysis references publicly released documents from the Epstein case archive. All individuals mentioned are presumed innocent unless convicted in a court of law. Language such as “documents indicate” reflects what appears in source materials, not conclusions of guilt. Readers are encouraged to review the cited source documents directly.

STAY INFORMED