Darren Indyke, Epstein’s lawyer, tells House panel he had “no knowledge whatsoever” of crimes

Darren Indyke, a lawyer who worked closely with Jeffrey Epstein for decades and serves as an executor of his estate, testified to the House Oversight Committee on Thursday that he “had no knowledge whatsoever” of his client’s crimes.

Indyke was perhaps Epstein’s closest associate dating back to the 1990s. He was involved in assembling Epstein’s complex web of businesses, properties and legal teams for a voluminous tangle of civil and criminal matters.

In his prepared remarks, Indyke told the committee behind closed doors that he did not socialize with Epstein and described himself as “one of many attorneys whom Mr. Epstein regularly consulted.”

“Not a single woman has ever accused me of committing sexual abuse or witnessing sexual abuse, nor claimed at any time that she or anyone else reported to me any allegation of Mr. Epstein’s abuse,” Indyke said.

Indyke is the second of two executors of Epstein’s estate to testify before the committee. The other, accountant Richard Kahn, testified on March 11 that he “was not aware of the nature or extent of Epstein’s abuse of so many women until after Epstein’s death.”

Both Indyke and Kahn said in their prepared remarks that if they had known of Epstein’s crimes, they would have quit working for him.

“The truth is that I did not know what Mr. Epstein did after hours, behind closed doors, and in places where I was not present,” Indyke said.

An attorney who represents some of Epstein’s victims criticized Indyke’s prepared remarks in a statement to CBS News.

“Darren Indyke’s claimed ignorance of Jeffrey Epstein’s widespread abuse of women and girls is deeply troubling, especially given his role as Epstein’s longtime attorney,” Marsh said. “His testimony only underscores how much still remains hidden about the vast network of enablers that allowed these crimes to persist for decades.”

Indyke and Kahn appear on paperwork for dozens of interconnected companies that facilitated payments to survivors of Epstein’s abuse, whose attorneys have said the pair were key figures in the management of those firms. Indyke and Kahn recently settled a lawsuit accusing them of facilitating sham marriages in which foreign-born victims married Americans whom Epstein abused, for immigration purposes.

He addressed those allegations in his prepared remarks Thursday, saying they “are 100% untrue.”

“I did not arrange, assist or facilitate any marriages between acquaintances of Mr. Epstein, nor was I aware in advance that such marriages took place,” Indyke said. He added that after the legalization of same-sex marriage in New York, he “did not consider it appropriate to interrogate anyone as to the reasons for their decisions to marry or the bona fides of their relationships.”

Millions of documents in the Justice Department’s Epstein files show a sophisticated network of businesses tied to Epstein.

The committee has heard from an ongoing stream of far more prominent names, but few who were as close to Epstein as Indyke. Convicted sex offender Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s co-conspirator, invoked her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and refused to answer questions during a virtual appearance before the committee.

Former President Bill Clinton testified on Feb. 27, denying any knowledge of Epstein’s crimes. His wife, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, said she didn’t know Epstein. She said the committee should demand President Trump sit for questions “under oath as should others who are prominently featured in the files.”

Kahn initially testified that the estate reached a settlement with a woman, referred to as “Jane Doe 4,” who made abuse allegations against both Epstein and Mr. Trump. His attorney later recanted that statement, saying he could neither confirm nor deny any such settlement, following a daylong back-and-forth with Democrats who criticized what they called “inconsistent” statements.

California Democratic Rep. Robert Garcia, the committee’s ranking member, said midway through Thursday’s deposition that Indyke also would not confirm or deny a settlement with the woman.

“Jane Doe 4, who we now know was a person that made serious accusations and allegations against President Trump, of which the FBI interviewed multiple times, and of which documents were first missing then put back and continue to be missing as it relates to this one survivor and accuser: the Epstein estate will not tell us if they have provided any type of settlement with this accuser,” Garcia said.

Texas Democratic Rep. Jasmine Crockett described Indyke as “defensive” of Epstein, “almost as if he still doesn’t believe Jeffrey Epstein to be who Jeffrey Epstein was.”

Billionaire Les Wexner was one of Epstein’s most significant benefactors. He claimed to the committee he was “duped by a world-class con man” and knew nothing of Epstein’s crimes.

Rep. James Comer of Kentucky, the committee’s Republican chairman, said on March 11 that Kahn was questioned about Wexner.

“He confirmed there were five clients that paid money to Epstein, and that was Les Wexner, Glenn Dubin, Steven Sinofsky, the Rothschilds and Leon Black,” Comer told reporters.

Comer said Black, also an investor and billionaire, would be deposed “very soon.”

The Oversight Committee had a tense meeting Wednesday evening, when Democrats walked out of a briefing with Attorney General Pam Bondi and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche.

The committee’s top Democrat, Rep. Robert Garcia of California, told reporters that Bondi did not commit to honoring a subpoena Comer issued earlier this week. He called the session a “fake hearing,” adding that Bondi wasn’t under oath and did not give an opening statement.

“It’s outrageous, it’s infuriating and it continues this White House coverup of the Epstein files,” Garcia said. “We’re not going to take that anymore.”

Heading into the Indyke deposition Thursday, the committee’s Republican chair accused the Democrats of not being “mature” when they left the meeting.

“We had the sitting attorney general there and they stormed out,” said Comer, adding that they “displayed a gross lack of seriousness that’s very concerning moving forward.”