When the FBI raided Jeffrey Epstein‘s New York mansion in July 2019, on the day he was arrested for child sex trafficking, agents forced open a large safe to find diamonds, bundles of cash, passports, binders of CDs and hard drives.
But an issue with the warrant meant they could not leave with the items. And when they returned with a new one, the safe had been emptied while they were gone – according to FBI documents.
Richard Kahn, Epstein’s accountant and bookkeeper since 2005, had told the mansion’s staff to pack two suitcases with the contents of the safe and deliver them to his home, agents wrote.
why do they still control his money and secrets?
After the FBI spoke to Kahn’s then lawyer, Kahn agreed to hand over the suitcases untouched, but he did not want agents coming to his house and declined to say who had told him to remove the items.
However, a source close to the investigation into Epstein told us that he was not aware of Kahn ever being interviewed or investigated in relation to the paedophile financier’s criminal investigation.
Kahn’s current lawyer told BBC News that his client had fully co-operated with the FBI’s requests.
Kahn, and Epstein’s long-serving lawyer Darren Indyke, are the sole executors of Epstein’s estate, controlling all his wealth and possessions.
Although hardly household names, the pair now hold control over compensation owed to survivors and the secrets contained in the documents still held by the Epstein estate – which, upon request, have been released to the House Oversight Committee.
As part of its investigation into Epstein’s network, the congressional committee has subpoenaed – summoned – the pair to testify. Kahn is appearing on Wednesday, while Indyke is due to testify on Thursday 19 March.
We have spoken to people associated with investigations linked to disgraced Epstein, looked through papers from multiple court cases, and analysed the most recent material released in the Epstein files by the US Department of Justice – to try to uncover more about the role the two men are alleged to have played in Epstein’s life and continue to play after his death.
Epstein appointed Indyke and Kahn as co-executors in August 2019, just two days before he died in jail awaiting trial for sex-trafficking minors. He revised his will to transfer all his wealth into a trust named after the year of his birth, which the lawyer and accountant would administer.
In their role as executors, Indyke and Kahn have agreed compensation packages paid to survivors and included conditions that prevented survivors who accepted funds from taking further legal action against them personally. Other claims are still outstanding.
As beneficiaries of the trust, the men could also be paid tens of millions of dollars each from whatever remains when the claims are settled.
The value of Epstein’s estate remains unclear. But it was estimated at roughly $635m (£475m) at the time of his death, according to Edwards Henderson, a law firm that represents many of the survivors.
One of the women Epstein abused, who asked to remain anonymous, told the BBC that Indyke and Kahn had questions to answer about what they knew about his “enterprise”.
“Jeffrey was just one human. There’s no way that he would have been able to keep up with all this on his own,” she said. “We always say, follow the money, right? If you follow the money, you can understand a lot about how this operation ran.”
Court filings claim that, either Indyke and Kahn – but often both of them – “had signatory authority over virtually all of the accounts held by Epstein”, which meant they were authorised to make transactions.
They also helped to run multiple Epstein corporations – some of which, it is alleged in court filings, existed solely for the purpose of his sex-trafficking operation. Kahn’s lawyer told us “there is no basis for such claims” and that Epstein’s businesses didn’t operate to shield his activities; “virtually all of them were tax-filing entities whose ownership was never hidden”.
The pair allegedly received millions in fees and loans from Epstein, paid off survivors and even facilitated coerced marriages for women trafficked from abroad to allow them to stay in the US, according to documents filed in court.
One lawsuit alleges that no-one except Ghislaine Maxwell – a former British socialite and now convicted associate of Epstein – was “as essential and central to Epstein’s operation” as Indyke and Khan.
US Congressman Suhas Subramanyam, a member of the House Oversight Committee, told BBC News “they may be two of the best people to talk to” for insight into how Epstein managed his affairs. “Certainly the victims have mentioned them as people who had awareness of some of Jeffrey Epstein’s crimes, not just financial dealings, but even the sex trafficking,” he said.
Indyke and Kahn have denied any wrongdoing in their interactions with Epstein and are not facing any criminal charges. “No judge in any court anywhere has ever found that Mr Indyke or Mr Kahn committed any wrongdoing of any kind,” Daniel Weiner, Indyke’s lawyer, told BBC News.
“Not a single woman has ever accused either man of committing sexual abuse or witnessing sexual abuse, nor claimed at any time that she reported to them any allegation of Mr Epstein’s abuse,” he added.
The woman abused by Epstein told us the men’s appearances before the committee were welcome because survivors had been “screaming about them for a long time”.
“They need to answer for all of this. I just hope that people actually do speak and don’t just plead the Fifth [Amendment] and sit there in silence, because nothing is gained from that,” she said.
In addition to their forthcoming testimony, as co-executors of Epstein’s estate, Indyke and Kahn have provided the House Oversight Committee with “thousands of pages of documents, photographs and other materials” in response to subpoenas, according to Indyke’s lawyer.
But some items, such as Epstein’s book of birthday messages, have come with the co-executors’ own redactions made beforehand, which Indyke and Kahn’s legal team say were made to protect the identities of victims.
The money men
Richard Kahn was not only the accountant for Jeffrey Epstein. Company records show that during the 2010s he also managed a New York-based design company.
However, court filings claim the company was part of a network of businesses that Epstein allegedly used to move money to victims and to people who recruited women for abuse.
Investigators uncovered these details in heavily redacted documents from a lawsuit filed by the United States Virgin Islands against Epstein’s estate and its executors, Darren Indyke and Kahn. The lawsuit accused them of involvement in human trafficking and financial fraud connected to Epstein’s operations.
The case was settled in 2022. Epstein’s estate agreed to pay more than $105 million in cash and also give half of the proceeds from the sale of one of Epstein’s private islands.
Court documents also alleged that Indyke and Kahn helped Epstein manage about 140 bank accounts as part of his financial network.
Court papers say one bank account of the design company was funded entirely with money transferred from accounts belonging to Jeffrey Epstein. According to the lawsuit, the company’s official owner was a woman who was allegedly being sexually abused by Epstein and was paid through the company.
The filings also mention another person listed on the company’s payroll. In documents sent to the bank, Richard Kahn described her as a designer. However, another document from Kahn reportedly showed she worked in a completely different profession, raising questions about why the company was paying her a salary.
Kahn’s lawyer, Dan Ruzumna, rejected the accusations. He told the BBC that Kahn simply provided normal accounting services. According to him, Kahn’s work for Epstein was the same type of bookkeeping work that thousands of professionals perform for clients every day.
Court documents also claim that Kahn and Darren Indyke used another Epstein company registered in the United States Virgin Islands to issue cheques worth about $300,000. The cheques were allegedly made out to young women or to an immigration lawyer who helped trafficked women stay in the United States.
Ruzumna denied that Kahn wrote such cheques. He said Kahn was not authorized to sign on Epstein’s bank accounts until shortly before Epstein’s death. He also argued that Epstein’s companies handled legitimate activities, such as paying household staff, covering expenses related to properties, making charitable donations, and managing taxes.
The court filings also accuse Indyke of repeatedly withdrawing cash in ways that avoided bank reporting rules. Victims of Epstein have said he often paid them and recruiters in cash.
In one example, the documents claim Indyke went to a New York bank with two cheques—one for $7,500 from Epstein’s personal account and another for $4,000 from Indyke’s business account. He reportedly cashed one cheque and said he would return the next day to cash the other to “avoid all the paperwork.”
According to the filings, Indyke withdrew $7,500 the bank’s third-party withdrawal limit 45 times over two years from another Epstein account. The lawsuit also claims that 97 separate ATM withdrawals of $1,000 were made within less than a year from a machine near Indyke’s law office, though the documents do not say who made those withdrawals.
The lawsuit further claims that Indyke and Kahn “profited substantially” from their relationship with Epstein. Between 2011 and 2019, Indyke allegedly received about $16 million and Kahn about $10 million from Epstein and his companies. Some of that money came as loans that Epstein’s will suggested should later be forgiven.
Lawyers for both men deny the allegations. Indyke’s attorney, Daniel Weiner, said his client rejects all claims of wrongdoing or liability.
A document believed to be Epstein’s will states that Indyke and Kahn could receive annual compensation of $250,000 for their work as executors of the estate, with legal fees paid by the estate. However, Ruzumna said the will actually provides a one-time payment of $250,000 for administering the estate.
Indyke’s lawyer added that the executors “never acted to put their own interests above their duties” and continue to manage the estate according to the law.
