The French investigation into the network surrounding Jeffrey Epstein has expanded significantly. Paris prosecutor Laure Beccuau said investigators had identified 13 additional potential victims who had not previously appeared in the case. That brings the total number of possible victims in the French inquiry to 26.
Prosecutors say 24 of those people have now been clearly identified, while eight still need to be interviewed. Some of the potential victims live outside France, complicating the procedural work. Investigators have also obtained new names of people who are being examined as possible recruiters for Epstein’s network.
The inquiry was reopened in February after millions of pages of Epstein-related documents were released in the United States. Some of that material concerned his French contacts, travel, property and social connections. For prosecutors, the disclosure created an opportunity to revisit episodes that had previously remained fragmented.
Daycom’s preliminary analysis of open and verified material indicates that the main change is not simply the larger number of potential victims. French investigators appear increasingly focused on reconstructing a system through which young women may have been identified, introduced and moved between countries.
France occupied a distinctive place in Epstein’s life. For nearly two decades, he regularly stayed in Paris, where he maintained a luxurious apartment on Avenue Foch and cultivated relationships across business, fashion, culture and politics. Those connections now form one of the central areas of investigative interest.
The inquiry extends well beyond Paris. Prosecutors have referred to leads reaching Cannes, Saint-Tropez and New York. That requires investigators to compare testimony gathered in France with U.S. records, travel histories, electronic communications and other material accumulated over many years.
Identifying possible intermediaries is another central task. Investigators are examining people who may have introduced young women to Epstein or to other men in his orbit. Mere acquaintance or professional contact is not evidence of a crime, meaning the status of each person must ultimately depend on specific evidence.
One of the central figures in the French strand of the case was model scout Daniel Siad. His name appeared repeatedly in U.S. records, and several women made serious allegations against him. Siad denied wrongdoing and maintained that his contacts with Epstein were professional in nature.
Siad was found dead at his home near Paris in July before French investigators could conduct a planned interview. An autopsy found no signs of recent violence, although the final cause of death had not been established when the first reports emerged and further testing was still underway.
His death prompted an angry response from some victims and their lawyers. They accused the French justice system of moving too slowly on information that had been available well before 2026. Prosecutors have responded that surveillance of Siad had not produced sufficient grounds for his immediate arrest.
French investigators had already faced a similar loss of a potentially important source of information. Modeling agent Jean-Luc Brunel, who was linked to Epstein and held on allegations of sexual crimes, was found dead in his prison cell in 2022. He died before judicial proceedings against him could be completed.
The modeling industry therefore remains one of the inquiry’s principal lines of examination. Investigators are trying to determine whether professional promises, castings and international contacts were used to gain access to young women. But working in that industry or knowing Epstein does not by itself establish criminal responsibility.
The passage of time is one of the case’s greatest difficulties. Many of the events described by women may have occurred decades ago. Witnesses are harder to locate, documents may have disappeared and some relevant people have died. That does not make testimony inherently unreliable, but it makes corroboration substantially more difficult.
For victims, that delay carries a different weight. Every death of someone they regarded as important to establishing what happened can mean losing the possibility of obtaining answers in court. That is why the emergence of new possible recruiters matters as evidence that the investigation did not end with Siad’s death.
The French inquiry is also inherently international. Some alleged offenses may have occurred abroad, potential victims live in several countries and much of the documentary material originated in the United States. Prosecutors must therefore determine not only what happened, but which episodes fall within French jurisdiction.
That also requires caution when dealing with prominent names contained in Epstein’s files. An address-book entry, email, photograph or shared event may establish contact, but not criminal conduct. A prosecution requires evidence of specific behavior, intent and a demonstrable link to the alleged exploitation of victims.
The same principle applies to the millions of pages released by U.S. authorities. The sheer volume of material gives investigators new leads but does not turn every reference into proof. Some records may be duplicated, contain unverified allegations or concern entirely lawful social or business relationships.
French investigators must now compare the accounts of 26 potential victims with correspondence, travel records, financial transactions and the contacts of possible intermediaries. That reconstruction may determine whether an organized recruitment mechanism operated in France rather than merely a loose network of acquaintances around Epstein.
Prosecutors have not named the newly identified potential recruiters and have not announced charges against them. It also remains unclear how many of the 26 cases will ultimately contain enough evidence for separate criminal proceedings. An expanded investigation signals new leads, not established guilt.
That is what makes the current stage of the Epstein case in France significant. Years after his death, investigators are trying to determine not only what the financier himself did, but whether a durable system of people around him facilitated access to potential victims. The answer will depend not on reputation or association, but on evidence.
