Statement on communications with Jeffrey Epstein, 1st March 2026
To encourage attention to the problematic culture that meant people overlooked the activities and crimes of Jeffrey Epstein, in early 2024 I wrote about my communications with him (email and audio) and expressed contrition for it: that was 2 years before the files were released in January 2026, and without knowing my emails would become public. In 2026, I was approached by journalists about that communication with Epstein. It has also been written about in misleading ways. Therefore, I’ve prepared a public statement for media enquiries.
In the summer of 2012 I was introduced in an email to Epstein, by an executive at the Gates Foundation, whom I had been corresponding with about how to fund research and dialogue on community-focused alternative currencies. I recall I spoke to Epstein on the phone in September 2012 — probably twice. I also recall one Skype call, but I do not remember when that occurred and do not have records for that. I sent the one proposal for funding to Epstein in September 2012, but he never replied to that and we never spoke again about funding. He never supported any of my work, financially or otherwise. I never met him, nor visited any of his properties, nor introduced anyone to him.
On our call before I sent the proposal, my recollection is that I told him I’d just learned about his conviction, needed to think about the implications, and that he probably couldn’t host events. (see below for what I recall that I knew at the time).* Therefore my follow up written proposal explained he could not be the host but would be named in any invitation as a private philanthropist in attendance. That statement is in the files (email of 17th September 2012): “I should front the initiative and mention you as a private philanthropist who will be at the event.” I thought he might not like me saying, effectively, that I’d like his funding but not him, and as he never replied to me (including after one reminder) I assumed he didn’t, and I dropped the conversation.
That interaction ended a month before I joined the University of Cumbria. I was not their employee at the time and had not, therefore, received guidance on how to discuss potential large donations from individuals. The matter never progressed to a stage to be assessed by their relevant committees. My subsequent experience of those committee requirements leads me to believe a donation would not have been allowed (unlike so many Universities who received his funding). As my seeking of funding was before I joined the University of Cumbria and I am no longer an employee with them, it is difficult to see a local institutional connection making this matter a ‘local interest’ story. I recommend any organisation considering communicating about this matter contact the University in advance, to confirm my start date with them, that no funding was received, and to assess the implications of whether and how to mention the University.
Years before my correspondence with Epstein became public, in 2023 I gave a speech which included my contrition for continuing the correspondence after I’d learned of his conviction, and my reflections on that experience. I aimed to promote attention to the newer information on the extent of his crimes, the bravery and desire of survivors for justice, and how his network seemingly influenced world affairs. I followed that up with an article on my website in January 2024 (i.e. 2 years before the email release).** I would consider it defamatory to mislead readers that I am explaining this matter and my contrition only after the release of the emails in the files, rather than years before, as I did, in public, as my contribution to bring attention to this matter. I was ignored by both the mainstream and independent media about it back then.
Some of the people who worked with Epstein, introduced us, and counselled me on the discussion with him, are redacted from the files. That means some of the public attention is directed to people like me who can be embarrassed by correspondence with Epstein, rather than looking at who worked for and with him — and to what ends. In my case, that wider issue is how he was able to shape the development of cryptocurrencies and stable coins, with whom, for whom, and to what ends. My own efforts to promote local currencies that would support community development and self-reliance, were never funded by any donor, and the history of currency innovation since 2012 has been one of financial speculation with limited social benefit.
In March 2014, I wrote to the people I had emails for in NYC, ahead of visiting there for a conference. That included Epstein. The correspondence in the files supports the fact that Epstein and I did not meet. But that correspondence suggests we may have spoken on Skype that month. My recollection is we didn’t speak, but I can’t confirm without Skype call logs on an old computer no longer in my possession. The lack of any correspondence in the files after we sought to arrange a Skype call supports my recollection that there was no follow up. However, I remain regretful I reached out to him at that time.
The subsequent emails from me to him were all email circulars, automatically sent to everyone in my email address book, with them clearly stating “Quarterly” newsletter in the subject line.
I remain disappointed in my mistake to communicate with Epstein, but relieved I wrote to him that he couldn’t host any funded activities (as evidenced in the files), and so that never progressed.
Does potentially shaming people who came forward with contrition and calls for accountability, years before public disclosure of their inconsequential correspondence, promote a culture of ethical behaviour and keep attention on the perpetrators and their powerful network, which the survivors have asked us to focus on? I think it might do the opposite. Yet Epstein’s survivors deserve and demand our attention to the network of geopolitical influence which scaled, hid, and prolonged the systems of abuse they suffered from. Serious independent analysis, not by state-owned or corporate media, demonstrates clearly that Epstein worked with Israeli intelligence, was elevated into his role by some Zionist billionaires, and collected material which he could use to blackmail people. Avoiding such facts implies a worry about tainting all Jewish people due to the behaviours, attitudes and crimes of some Jewish extremists, and is therefore itself an antisemitic generalisation. To illustrate by comparison: if you didn’t want to criticise Christian nationalist extremists because you thought it would taint all Christians, you would be making a similarly racist generalisation. To not focus on the geopolitical network of influence that made and aided Epstein, and to even distract from that, is to undermine attention to how such networks must still be operating today, and so inadvertently help there to be more victims in future.
There are many stories and framings being promoted in the mainstream and independent media which do not focus on the geopolitical network that was the cause, enabler and protector of Epstein’s work and network. In some cases that is just the result of the personal and institutional incentives those media commentators have to not prioritise the attention to the structures of power that the survivors have called for. In other cases, something more sinister is occurring.
Personally, me being introduced, via the World Economic Forum, to billionaires, officials in corrupt and despotic regimes, and various other elites, from 2012 to 2016, helped to shape my subsequent conclusion that significant positive social change would not come from the top down. Therefore I have made anti-globalist environmentalism a key part of my analysis, which is outlined in detail in my 2023 book Breaking Together. It’s also why I quit engaging internationally and work at the grassroots, including an organic farm school and interfaith retreats.
Sincerely,
Jem Bendell
Founder, Bekandze Organic Farm
*The following is the article I recall reading about Epstein in 2012. The Guardian was my go-to source on everything to do with current affairs before 2018. Note the way Epstein’s conviction was explained in a rather muted way. That is not an excuse for disregarding it, but an indicator of how the matter was written about less explicitly back then and without all the additional context that some knew back then – and which we now know.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/mar/07/prince-andrew-decide-trade-role-vince-cable
**The following is my 2024 article on my interaction with Epstein. I wrote it a year after I expressed contrition in a public speech. One newspaper has misrepresented this statement by not mentioning the date and implying it is what I said after the files were released, rather than two years before: something I will now take up with them;
