**
Recent disclosures from the US Department of Justice have unveiled disturbing insights into Jeffrey Epstein’s intentions regarding investment in EMI Records, a prominent name in the music industry. The newly released emails suggest that Epstein’s associate, David Stern, implied that such an investment could provide access to women, raising serious ethical questions about the motivations behind Epstein’s business dealings.
Insights from the Emails
The emails exchanged between Epstein and Stern indicate that Epstein was contemplating a financial stake in EMI, a company that has since become defunct after its acquisition by Universal Music in 2012. Stern, a businessman with connections to various high-profile figures, referred to the music industry as being “related to P,” a euphemism believed to denote women in Epstein’s lexicon. In a response, Epstein expressed interest, writing, “Do we need help – mandelson?” This correspondence raises alarming implications regarding Epstein’s perception of women and his predatory behaviour.
Stern’s relationship with Epstein was not just professional; he was also linked with Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor and had previously facilitated discussions regarding financial matters involving Sarah Ferguson. His emails often flagged potential business opportunities, including a notable mention of EMI’s financial difficulties back in February 2010. Stern remarked, “Troubled industry but related to P,” further illustrating the concerning context in which these discussions took place.
Connections to Prominent Figures
At the time of these exchanges, Lord Mandelson held significant political influence as the First Secretary of State and Business Secretary in the UK. Following Stern’s suggestion of engaging Mandelson in the EMI deal, Epstein reached out to Mandelson directly for assistance, highlighting the intricate network of connections that Epstein utilised. Mandelson’s vague replies included a request for Epstein to provide contact details for a third party referred to as “Ben,” whose identity remains redacted.
In further communications, Epstein proposed bringing in Tommy Mottola, the former head of Sony Music, to manage the potential investment. Mottola’s name appears repeatedly in the DOJ’s files, though his involvement does not imply wrongdoing. Despite Epstein’s intentions, the deal ultimately did not materialise, and EMI fell under the control of Citigroup, which later divided the company before selling it in 2012.
Ongoing Interest in EMI and Broader Implications
Even years later, Epstein’s network continued to discuss opportunities related to EMI. In 2011, businessman Kevin Law mentioned to Epstein that he could facilitate a bid for the company in partnership with KKR, a significant private equity firm at the time. Law has since denied any involvement in a bid for EMI, asserting he never engaged in business dealings with Epstein.
Stern maintained his interest in acquiring a record label, suggesting that EMI could attract interest from Chinese investors, especially if structured properly. His commentary also indicated a troubling rationale, stating it would be “great asset to have for P!” This remark further underscores the pervasive nature of Epstein’s exploitative mindset.
Broader Context of Epstein’s Business Ventures
The documents reveal not only Epstein’s fixation on the music industry, but also his interest in model agencies and fashion-related businesses, which also failed to materialise. This pattern reflects a broader strategy where Epstein sought to leverage his financial networks to facilitate access to vulnerable individuals, a tactic previously suspected by French prosecutors regarding his connections in the fashion industry.
Why it Matters
The revelations surrounding Jeffrey Epstein’s potential investment in EMI Records serve as a stark reminder of the intersection between power, influence, and exploitation. These communications expose a troubling narrative that highlights the predatory behaviours of individuals in positions of wealth and status, raising critical questions about accountability and the ethical implications of business dealings in high-stakes environments. As discussions surrounding Epstein’s legacy continue, it is imperative to examine the systemic issues that allow such exploitative behaviours to persist unchecked.
