New Mexico Sues Epstein's Executors Indyke and Kahn Over Alleged Cover-Up
Attorney General Raúl Torrez says the two men helped conceal abuse at Zorro Ranch and still earn money while Epstein's victims seek compensation
By AXY War & Crime Desk ·
Key points
- New Mexico has sued Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn, the sole executors of Jeffrey Epstein's estate, accusing them of helping conceal abuse at Zorro Ranch.
- The lawsuit was filed on Wednesday under the federal Trafficking Victims Protection Act and the New Mexico Racketeering Act.
- Attorney General Raúl Torrez says the men are blocking survivors from compensation while they continue to earn money from the estate.
- Epstein's fortune was estimated at roughly $635m (£474m) at the time of his death.
- Both men deny knowing about Epstein's crimes, and their lawyer calls the allegations categorically false.
- A separate criminal probe into Epstein, re-launched in February, is continuing alongside the civil case.
New Mexico has filed a civil lawsuit against Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn, two longtime aides of Jeffrey Epstein who are now the sole executors of his estate. State prosecutors accuse the men of profiting from the late financier's sex trafficking ring and of helping to conceal abuse at his remote Zorro Ranch near the city of Santa Fe. Both men deny having any knowledge of Epstein's crimes, and their attorney has rejected the lawsuit as "categorically false."
The case was filed in New Mexico on Wednesday under two laws. The first is the federal Trafficking Victims Protection Act, which allows people who were trafficked to sue those who knowingly benefited from the trafficking. The second is the New Mexico Racketeering Act, a state law aimed at organised criminal enterprises, which lets prosecutors link several people to one scheme. Using both laws suggests the state wants to treat the alleged conduct as a coordinated effort rather than a set of separate failures.
Who Indyke and Kahn Are and What They Control
Indyke is a lawyer and Kahn is an accountant. Both men worked with Epstein for decades, handling legal and financial matters for him. Now they hold the most important job in his estate. They are its sole executors, which means they control all of his wealth and possessions.
An executor is the person who settles someone's affairs after death. The role involves gathering assets, paying debts and deciding how the money is spent or distributed to beneficiaries. In Epstein's case, that puts Indyke and Kahn in a position between his remaining fortune and the people who say he harmed them. Whatever the court decides about their conduct, the men are still the ones deciding how the estate's money moves.
How Epstein's Crimes Led to This Lawsuit
Epstein was arrested in July 2019 in New York on sex trafficking charges. He died in federal custody that August while awaiting trial. His associate Ghislaine Maxwell was later convicted of sex trafficking in a federal case. Those prosecutions focused on Epstein's crimes and the people who helped him commit them, but they did not settle every question about who else knew what was going on around him.
Indyke and Kahn have previously testified to Congress that they were unaware of the crimes Epstein committed alongside Maxwell. They have held to that position since then. The new lawsuit tests that account directly by asking a court to examine what the two men knew while they were providing legal and accounting services to Epstein. For survivors, this is the central issue. If the men knew about the abuse and kept working for Epstein, the state argues they helped make it possible.
What Torrez Alleges About Zorro Ranch
New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez spoke at a news conference about the case. He said the two men played a key role in concealing abuse at Zorro Ranch, the isolated property near Santa Fe where prosecutors say Epstein abused victims with the help of key aides. The ranch is the physical center of the state's allegations, and it is the place where the state says the abuse happened.
Torrez also said the men continue to earn money while the victims are still seeking accountability. That point seems to be at the heart of the state's argument. The money is still moving through the estate, and the people the state accuses of helping hide the abuse are still being paid to manage it.
Torrez made a moral argument as well as a legal one. He said the men are blocking efforts by Epstein's victims to seek compensation from his fortune. In his words: "Those resources rightfully belong in the hands of survivors - there should be no distribution of Mr Epstein's remaining assets to people like Mr Indyke and Mr Kahn for participation in what I think is one of the most horrific criminal enterprises in modern America."
The Estate's Money and the Survivors' Claims
The estate gives the lawsuit much of its practical weight. Epstein's fortune was estimated at roughly $635m (£474m) at the time of his death. For people who say they were abused, that money is one of the few realistic sources of compensation, because the assets are controlled by the executors and not by the victims themselves.
This could make the lawsuit as much about control of the money as about what the men knew. If the state persuades the court that Indyke and Kahn helped conceal abuse, the court would have to decide whether they should keep receiving payment from the estate. Every dollar spent on administration is a dollar that does not reach survivors. That is why the question of who is paid, and when, matters to the people who are waiting.
The next question is whether the court will treat the estate's assets as something that can be restricted while the case is pending. That would be a significant step, and it would show how seriously the court views the state's allegations about the men's role.
How the Two Men Are Responding
An attorney representing both men told the BBC that they "emphatically reject" the claims in the lawsuit. Their lawyer, Daniel Weiner, went further in a written statement. He called the allegations "categorically false" and said the two men reject claims that they knowingly facilitated or assisted Epstein in his sexual abuse or trafficking of women. He also said they were not aware of Epstein's actions while they provided legal or accounting services to him.
Weiner said in his statement that "they are confident that they will prevail on the claims asserted against them." That line signals that the men intend to fight the case rather than settle it quickly. In civil cases like this one, the defence often focuses on what the plaintiff can prove about what the defendant knew and when. Here, the central question becomes what Indyke and Kahn understood about Epstein's activities while they worked for him, and whether their professional services were used to cover those activities up.
Two Tracks: The Civil Suit and the Criminal Probe
The civil lawsuit is separate from the state's criminal investigation into Epstein, which was re-launched in February. The two proceedings are aimed at different outcomes. A civil case asks a court to order remedies, such as money, from the people who are sued. A criminal case can lead to charges, trials and prison sentences if prosecutors prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.
The two tracks can run at the same time, and their outcomes do not have to match. A civil judgment would not automatically decide any criminal question. A criminal decision would not settle the civil claims on its own. For readers, this matters because it is easy to assume that one court case will give a single final answer. In this matter, the state is pursuing two routes, each with its own rules about evidence and proof.
What Could Happen Next in Court
The immediate step is the court process itself. The men will have the chance to respond to the lawsuit formally, and the state will have to support its claims in court filings. Both sides may ask the court for early rulings on how the case should proceed and what the estate can do while it is pending.
The case could also shape how survivors pursue compensation from Epstein's fortune. If the state shows that the people who managed his money helped hide his abuse, the outcome could influence how similar claims are handled in future. For now, the question at the centre of the case is simple. Did the men who controlled Epstein's money know what he was doing, and should they keep being paid from it while the people who say they were harmed wait for compensation?
Questions and answers
Who is being sued in the New Mexico Epstein case?
New Mexico has sued Darren Indyke, a lawyer, and Richard Kahn, an accountant. Both are the sole executors of Jeffrey Epstein's estate and worked with him for decades.
What does New Mexico accuse Indyke and Kahn of doing?
Attorney General Raúl Torrez says the men helped conceal abuse at Epstein's Zorro Ranch and continue to earn money from the estate while victims seek accountability. Both men deny any knowledge of Epstein's crimes.
How much is Jeffrey Epstein's estate worth?
Epstein's fortune was estimated at roughly $635m (£474m) at the time of his death. The state argues that survivors should be able to seek compensation from those resources.
Is the New Mexico lawsuit part of the criminal case against Epstein?
No. The civil lawsuit is separate from the state's criminal probe into Epstein, which was re-launched in February.
Topics: Jeffrey Epstein, New Mexico, Raúl Torrez, Darren Indyke, Richard Kahn, Zorro Ranch, Epstein estate
Sources: BBC US & Canada