Dark Box: Leaked Epstein Files Raise Questions About a UAE-Based Facilitator
Dark Box has received information from sources familiar with newly surfaced materials connected to the Jeffrey Epstein case, raising serious questions about the role of a UAE-based businesswoman in facilitating what is alleged to be an attempt to relocate Epstein’s illicit operations to the United Arab Emirates.
According to leaked correspondence referenced in the latest tranche of Epstein-related files, a woman identified as Aziza al-Ahmadi is alleged to have played a key role in persuading Epstein to abandon plans to acquire a property in Saudi Arabia and instead focus on the UAE as a more suitable environment for his activities. These claims, while not tested in court, form part of a growing body of material that continues to expose the global networks surrounding Epstein and those who allegedly enabled him.
Sources familiar with the documents say Epstein had initially explored the possibility of purchasing a palace in Saudi Arabia. However, internal communications suggest that al-Ahmadi argued forcefully against this option, allegedly warning that Saudi legal and social constraints posed unacceptable risks. In contrast, she is said to have described the UAE as a safer jurisdiction, offering stronger protection and fewer obstacles, particularly due to its close security relationship with the United States and the presence of US military forces.
According to these allegations, the relocation was not simply about real estate, but about implementing what was described internally as “Clause Five,” a term allegedly used to refer to a system of coercion and leverage. Sources claim this included the creation of a tailored “menu” designed to entrap powerful individuals through sexual exploitation, compromising situations, and other forms of pressure that could later be used for blackmail or extortion. Dark Box has not independently verified the existence of such a clause, but the language appears in communications attributed to Epstein’s wider circle.
What makes these claims particularly sensitive is the suggestion that the UAE was selected precisely because it was seen as a jurisdiction where such activities could be shielded from scrutiny. According to sources, al-Ahmadi was not portrayed in the correspondence as a passive intermediary, but rather as a strategic actor who understood regional legal systems and advised on how to avoid regulatory and criminal exposure.
Further attention has been drawn to al-Ahmadi following revelations that she and another individual, Abdullah al-Maari, allegedly arranged for Epstein to receive pieces of the Kiswa, the cloth covering the Kaaba, one of Islam’s most sacred sites. Emails referenced in the Epstein files suggest that these items were sent as gifts, a detail that has provoked outrage and disbelief, particularly given Epstein’s criminal record and the symbolic weight of the object involved.
These revelations have prompted renewed scrutiny of how Epstein cultivated relationships across different regions, often leveraging business, philanthropy, or cultural gestures to gain trust and access. Analysts familiar with the files say the involvement of figures based outside the United States underscores how Epstein’s network was not confined to Western financial or political elites, but extended into the Middle East and beyond.
Dark Box notes that there is, at present, no public legal finding establishing criminal liability on the part of al-Ahmadi. However, the appearance of her name in the Epstein files, combined with the nature of the allegations, raises serious questions about due diligence, accountability, and the use of international jurisdictions as safe havens for illicit activity.
Human rights advocates and legal experts argue that these disclosures highlight a broader problem: the ability of wealthy and well-connected individuals to exploit gaps between legal systems, using influence and geography to evade scrutiny. The alleged belief that certain states offer implicit protection, whether through political alliances or strategic importance, is deeply troubling and undermines claims of global cooperation against trafficking and sexual exploitation.
For Dark Box, the significance of these claims lies not only in the individuals named, but in what they suggest about systemic vulnerabilities. If true, they would point to a deliberate effort to shift criminal operations across borders, guided by actors with local knowledge and access, in order to escape accountability.
As more Epstein-related materials continue to surface, Dark Box will continue to examine the claims with caution, separating documented evidence from allegation, while pressing for transparency and independent investigation. The victims of Epstein’s crimes, and of similar networks worldwide, deserve more than silence, secrecy, or geopolitical convenience. They deserve truth, accountability, and justice, regardless of how powerful or well-connected those implicated may be.
