Honeycomb Partners

The connection between David Fiszel and Jeffrey Epstein was initiated by Eva Dubin in December 2015, when Fiszel was preparing to launch his own fund after a career at SAC Capital and Point72. A review of the correspondence record shows that on February 4–5, 2016, Fiszel visited Epstein at the 9 East 71st Street townhouse in Manhattan, where he met individuals identified only as "Peter" and "Eva" ⁵. According to the correspondence, Epstein subsequently wrote to Fiszel that "peter liked you, that’s rare" ⁵. Days later, Fiszel sent the email that would define the relationship: "I appreciate being included and look forward to launching Honeycomb with your day one partnership" ⁷.

From that point, the relationship operated on two tracks. On the formal track, Richard Kahn served as the intermediary for all financial and administrative matters. Kahn relayed performance updates, coordinated tax treatment (noting Honeycomb’s Section 475 election that rendered all income ordinary), and referred to Epstein as "boss" when communicating with Fiszel—as when he told Fiszel, "just spoke with boss and he was very happy for you" after strong 2017 returns ⁴. On the informal track, records show Fiszel maintained direct email contact with Epstein, sharing investment pitches, discussing the Trump tech summit and Palantir, and visiting El Brillo Way in Palm Beach on November 22, 2018 ⁵. As late as March 2019, Fiszel responded to an Epstein-forwarded NYT opinion piece with "Very powerful Op-Ed. Thank you for sharing" ⁵.

Examination of the December 2017 exchange in which Kahn requested that Fiszel arrange introductions to "Rothschild, Leon, Nicole" indicates the reciprocal dimension of this arrangement: Epstein provided capital and in return expected his fund managers to serve as conduits into their own professional and social networks ². For Fiszel, this meant leveraging his Point72 pedigree and hedge fund relationships to provide Epstein access to individuals and circles that his own reputation increasingly precluded.

Honeycomb Asset Management LP operated a master-feeder structure common to institutional hedge funds. All investable assets resided in Honeycomb Master Fund LP, which received capital from three feeder vehicles: Honeycomb Partners LP (the onshore U.S. fund), Honeycomb Intermediate Fund LP, and Honeycomb Offshore Fund Ltd ⁸. Investors subscribed at the feeder level in one of two share classes: Class A (2% management fee, 20% incentive allocation) or Class B1 (1.5% management fee, 15% incentive allocation). Morgan Stanley Fund Services administered the fund, while co-investment vehicles banked at JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., at 270 Park Avenue, New York ⁸. Key personnel included Vick Sandhu (COO, General Counsel, and Chief Compliance Officer), Dominique Ahumada (Head of Capital Partnerships and Talent, responsible for investor relations), and Anita O’Donnell, who appeared on wire and investment communications ⁹.

The documented Epstein capital flows into Honeycomb began with the anchor investment: a $20 million wire on May 31, 2016 from Southern Trust Company Inc’s MMDA account *9244, which at the time held a balance of $80.9 million ¹. This wire coincided with Honeycomb’s June 1, 2016 inception date, confirming Epstein’s role as a day-one anchor ⁷. A Northern Trust bank statement from June 2018 shows a Honeycomb Partners LP account (C 15185220010) with a $5 million outgoing money transfer on June 28 and an ending balance of approximately $2.1 million ¹. Analysis of all documented flows—including the anchor, co-investments, and additional allocations—indicates total Epstein exposure to Honeycomb of $60–70 million, substantially exceeding the $34 million estimate in the Dechert Exhibit B accounting ².

Performance justified the capital commitment, at least in the early years. By July 2017, Honeycomb’s Class A shares had returned 22.3% gross year-to-date (17.9% net), while Class B1 posted 22.7% gross (19.3% net) ⁴. For 2018, when the average long-short hedge fund was down 10%, Fiszel’s fund was up 5.2%—a performance differential that Kahn reported directly to Epstein ⁴. The fund’s Section 475 mark-to-market election meant all income was treated as ordinary for tax purposes, with the estimated tax impact on Epstein’s $20 million investment at 20% returns calculated at approximately $4 million ⁴.

Beyond the core hedge fund, Honeycomb created a series of special purpose vehicles—Honeycomb Ventures I through IV—to channel investor capital into pre-IPO positions in high-profile technology companies. These co-investment opportunities were offered selectively to existing Honeycomb LPs, and the documentary record shows Epstein received preferential access and pricing on multiple occasions ³.

The most thoroughly documented of these is Honeycomb Ventures I LP, the Spotify co-investment. In July 2017, Fiszel pitched Epstein on Spotify at a $13 billion valuation, comparing it to "Netflix 5 years ago" and offering a $1.5 million allocation. Epstein confirmed $1 million. The wire was sent July 10, 2017 to Honeycomb Ventures I LP’s JPMorgan Chase account, with the reference line reading "Southern Trust"—directly linking Epstein’s investment entity to the co-invest vehicle ¹⁰. When Spotify opened on the NYSE in April 2018 at $132 per share against a basis of $77.50, the position had generated approximately 70% returns. A distribution of $1,752,515.84 flowed back to STC from Honeycomb Ventures LP on May 24, 2018, likely representing a partial or full Spotify return ¹⁰. In August 2017, Fiszel offered Epstein additional Spotify allocation at cost—with no fee to Honeycomb—at a projected 40% IRR, demonstrating the preferential treatment Epstein received as an anchor LP.

The SpaceX co-investment, offered in February 2017, was structured through the opt-in private side of Honeycomb. Fiszel was purchasing $2 million (60% from his personal capital) at an $18 billion valuation and $118 per share, with up to $6 million in additional co-invest capacity available—offered while noting that Elon Musk was personally buying $100 million at $105 per share ³. Honeycomb Ventures IV LP was created for Tencent Music Entertainment in June 2018. Epstein responded to the fund documents with "5 - 10 m," indicating he was considering a $5–10 million allocation against total deal access of $50 million. Demand was described as strong, with first-come-first-serve allocation and likely cutbacks ¹¹. Palantir was discussed in October 2018 at approximately $14 billion valuation, with Fiszel noting it was the only private company at the December 2016 Trump tech summit ³. The pattern across all four deals—dedicated SPV, selective allocation, direct Fiszel-to-Epstein pitch—matches the Dechert Exhibit B framework of Epstein’s co-investment activity.

A review of all available databases reveals how little trace the Honeycomb–Epstein relationship left outside of a narrow band of financial documents. A review of records across unified emails (851,000 entities), LMSBAND co-occurrence tables, DS10 parsed financials, DDoSecrets EML archives, OpenSanctions, and EpsteinExposed returned virtually no references to Honeycomb ⁶. The LMSBAND corpus yielded only three relevant financial documents (a wire record and two bank statements) plus three irrelevant aircraft maintenance references to honeycomb material. Review of the documents in the Epstein 20,000-document House Oversight release found only Fiszel email signatures, not substantive Honeycomb correspondence ⁶.

This absence is analytically notable. With more than twenty primary source documents confirming the relationship—including wire records, bank statements, fund offering documents, and direct email correspondence—the near-total absence of Honeycomb from entity extraction databases suggests the fund name rarely appeared in email body text. Examination of the records indicates that Richard Kahn served as the sole intermediary for formal communications, while Fiszel’s direct contact with Epstein was conducted through personal channels that did not reference the fund by name ⁶. A review of records across multiple state registries found no Honeycomb corporate registration, an unusual gap for an operational fund with JPMorgan and Morgan Stanley relationships ⁶.

This intermediary insulation pattern is consistent with how Epstein structured other fund relationships: a trusted financial advisor (Kahn) handled all documented interactions, the fund manager maintained plausible distance, and the anchor LP’s identity was obscured behind entity names like Southern Trust Company. According to records in the EFTA corpus, Honeycomb’s lawyer denied any relationship with Epstein entirely—a position contradicted by more than twenty primary source documents ².