Hedge fund magnate John Paulson accuses estranged wife of trying to 'rob' their ... trends now
Hedge fund mogul John Paulson has accused his estranged wife of trying to ‘rob’ their two daughters of their $2billion inheritance amid their bitter divorce battle, DailyMail.com can reveal.
Paulson, 68, is being sued by his ex-wife Jenny Zaharia, 55, over claims that he squirreled away millions in a ‘secret trust’ during their 21 years of marriage.
Paulson, who is worth $4.7billion, moved on with dietician Alina De Almeida shortly after splitting with Jenny, and recently hit the headlines for hosting a Trump fundraiser at his $110million mansion – where his 35-year-old fiancée showcased her massive new sparkler.
Lawyers for Paulson, who filed for divorce in 2021, told DailyMail.com that the mogul offered to settle the case and ‘remove future spouses and children as trust beneficiaries’, as well as ‘hundreds of millions of dollars’, which was rejected by his wife.
John and Jenny Paulson have been married for 24 years and it is still not over despite him filing for divorce in 2021
Paulson announced his engagement to new love Alina De Almeida earlier this month around the same time the couple hosted a fundraiser at his Palm Beach mansion attended by Donald Trump and his wife Melania
Alina debuted her massive new sparkler at the fundraiser which raked in an estimated $50.5 million for the Trump presidential campaign
The 2006 letter that Paulson says proves that his Romanian-born wife knew of his 'secret tust'
Jenny claims Paulson has hidden at least $1billion in secret trusts but he accuses her of trying to rob their daughters Danielle, 21, (right) and Giselle, 19, of a huge part of their inheritances
A new document obtained by DailyMail.com show a letter from JP Morgan addressed to Jenny referencing the trust – as lawyers for Paulson say it’s proof that she knew of its existence.
The letter, from 2006, 18 months after the birth of their second daughter Giselle informed Jenny that she must sign several papers for their two daughters as they were minors at the time.
Paulson’s team also estimate that his is estranged wife is to win the case she would wipe out $1billion from the trust – cutting it in half – adding it is ‘just to increase her divorce settlement.’
Paulson told DailyMail.com: ‘The trusts were prudently formed decades ago to provide for our children.
‘There was no fraud, no stealing, no siphoning, no hiding. Jenny was fully aware of the Trusts since they were formed.
‘JPMorgan, as the trustee, have notified her of the trusts since 2006. She signed tax returns every year since their formation, evidencing the trusts. Representatives from JPMorgan were available to consult with Jenny at all times.’
They added that his estranged wife was offered ‘hundreds of millions of dollars’ to settle out of court, and revealed that Paulson offered to ‘remove future spouses and children as trust beneficiaries.’
James Smith, counsel for Paulson, told DailyMail.com: ‘She outright rejected the offer. Thus, her argument that she is opening the trusts to protect her children is absolutely false.
‘Her attempt to break the trusts will cost her daughters about $1 billion in future taxes and rob them of their inheritance, just to increase her divorce settlement.
‘For someone who will be one of the richest women in America regardless of how this case ends, her greed is unconscionable.’
Paulson, who is worth $4.7billion, moved on with dietician Alina De Almeida shortly after splitting with Jenny
The Palm Beach mansion where the Trump fundraiser was held is the crown jewel in Paulson's massive real estate portfolio
Alina's name was on the invitation for the fundraiser alongside her new fiancé's. Tickets for the event cost $814,600 for a seat at the former president's table
But Jenny's lawyers deny that the settlement was offered to her with the removal of future children and spouses from the trust.
Robert Cohen told DailyMail.com: ‘I ask Mr. Paulson and his attorney, respectfully: Put your offer in writing, in the form of a court-filed public stipulation, so we know Mr. Paulson is serious and will be bound by it, and then we can proceed.
‘Mr Paulson conveniently omits the offer we did make to him – to “decant” or
