The State Department rented Epstein Iranian-seized property in 1992 – what was the official justification and who approved this arrangement?

  • By
  • Posted in Epstein
  • 5 mins read
  • Published

Powered by https://x.com/Thewebb_io

The State Department’s Rental of Iranian-Seized Property to Epstein: Official Justification and Approval

The Property and Legal Framework

The property in question was 34 East 69th Street in Manhattan, which had served as the residence of the Deputy Consul General of Iran until diplomatic relations were severed in 1980 [, ]. Under the Foreign Missions Act (FMA) and the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, the U.S. State Department’s Office of Foreign Missions (OFM) was entrusted with the “care and maintenance” of the premises as trustee-landlord for Iran [, ].

The Lease Arrangement

Timeline and Terms:

  • February 1, 1992: OFM entered into a two-year lease with Jeffrey Epstein running through January 31, 1994 []
  • Monthly Rent: $15,000 per month []
  • August 28, 1992: Lease extended for three more years through January 31, 1997 []
  • Use Restrictions: The lease stipulated the premises could only be occupied by Epstein, his family, servants, or approved subtenants/assignees as a single-family residence []

Official Justification and Legal Authority

The documents reveal the legal justification was straightforward: OFM had statutory authority under the Foreign Missions Act to manage and lease foreign mission properties in U.S. custody. The State Department was acting as trustee-landlord for Iran’s property, with responsibilities to “maintain, manage, protect and preserve” the premises [].

The arrangement fell under standard property management practices for seized diplomatic properties. The Foreign Missions Act (22 U.S.C. § 4301 et seq.) specifically authorizes the Secretary of State to “provide for the protection of foreign missions” and manage properties when diplomatic relations are severed [].

Who Approved the Arrangement?

The documents name specific OFM officials involved in managing the Epstein lease:

  1. Richard C. Massey: An OFM official who submitted declarations in the legal proceedings regarding the government’s protection of the premises []
  2. Thomas E. Burns: An OFM representative who formally communicated with Epstein regarding lease matters. In an April 26, 1996 letter, Burns informed Epstein of OFM’s intention to lease the premises to another party (Xenophon Galinas) if Epstein didn’t renew personally, and denied Epstein’s request to sublet to Fisher []
  3. Richard Massey (again): Conducted a telephone conference on April 19, 1996 with Jeffrey Schantz, Epstein’s transaction counsel, regarding subletting requests []

The Controversy and Legal Dispute

The arrangement became controversial when:

  • Epstein sublet the property to Ivan Fisher in 1996 without OFM’s written consent, despite the lease requiring prior written approval []
  • Fisher then sublet portions to other lawyers, creating multiple subtenants []
  • Epstein claimed OFM gave oral consent during the April 19, 1996 phone call, but OFM denied this and insisted on written consent []
  • The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York eventually brought an eviction action against Epstein and Fisher []

What the Documents DON’T Reveal

Critical gaps in the record:

  1. No internal State Department memos explaining why Epstein specifically was chosen as tenant from what was presumably a competitive rental market
  2. No documentation of the vetting process for Epstein as a tenant in 1992
  3. No records of who at OFM specifically authorized the initial 1992 lease – the documents only show OFM as an institution entered the lease
  4. No explanation of how Epstein learned about this unique property or who facilitated the introduction to OFM

The Suspicious Timing

What makes this arrangement particularly noteworthy:

  • 1992 was when Epstein was establishing himself in New York society after his controversial departure from Bear Stearns
  • The property was prime Manhattan real estate (Upper East Side townhouse) at a time when Epstein was building his image
  • The State Department connection provided an unusual level of institutional legitimacy
  • The property’s Iranian diplomatic history added an intelligence/geopolitical dimension

The Bigger Picture

This arrangement fits a pattern of Epstein gaining access to government-controlled properties and resources:

  1. State Department-leased Iranian property (1992-1997)
  2. Scheduled meetings with future CIA Director William Burns (2014) [from previous investigation]
  3. Political donations to influence local governments (New Mexico, U.S. Virgin Islands)

What’s most striking: The State Department was renting Epstein property seized from a hostile nation (Iran) while he was allegedly running a sex trafficking operation. This raises questions about whether:

  1. Proper due diligence was conducted on Epstein before leasing him sensitive property
  2. Intelligence considerations played a role in the arrangement
  3. Epstein had sponsors or advocates within the government who facilitated this access

The fundamental question remains unanswered: Was this a routine property management decision by mid-level OFM officials, or was Epstein specifically steered toward this property by someone with knowledge of its availability and symbolic value?

Dig Deeper:

  • “Richard Massey and Thomas Burns were OFM officials handling Epstein’s lease – what other government properties did they manage and who were their supervisors?”
  • “The Iranian property was seized in 1980 but not leased to Epstein until 1992 – who occupied it during those 12 years and why was Epstein chosen as tenant?”
  • “Epstein claimed OFM gave oral consent to sublet in April 1996 phone call – what other communications existed between Epstein and State Department officials beyond the lease documents?”

HighlightsFilters