Epstein’s wealth didn’t just “exist”—it kept moving. His money man reveals 9 secrets behind the fortune: how the cash flowed, where assets were parked, and what paperwork kept certain connections from rising to the surface. The money story just got colder|KF
In Washington, where congressional hearings often stretch for hours and the stakes can involve the reputations of some of the most powerful figures in the world, a familiar phrase resurfaced once again: follow the money.
That phrase framed a dramatic day on Capitol Hill when lawmakers turned their attention to one of the most important figures connected to the financial operations of Jeffrey Epstein — his longtime accountant, Richard Khan.
Khan was not a celebrity. He was not a politician. And unlike many of the figures whose names have appeared in headlines connected to Epstein, he largely worked behind the scenes for years, managing the finances of a man who would later become one of the most notorious criminals in modern American history.
But during a lengthy appearance before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Khan suddenly found himself at the center of intense questioning from lawmakers determined to understand exactly how Epstein’s money moved, where it came from, and who might have been connected to it.
The accountant’s testimony stretched across hours of questioning. And at the heart of the hearing was a central question that investigators and journalists have repeated for years: what did the people closest to Epstein actually know?
Khan opened his testimony with a clear statement.
“In the years that I provided outside accounting and bookkeeping services for Jeffrey Epstein,” he said, “I was not aware of the terrible and unforgivable things that he did to women and girls. My relationship with Epstein was strictly on a professional level.”
That theme — a claim of professional distance and lack of knowledge — would repeat throughout the hearing.
But lawmakers and investigators were clearly interested in examining whether that explanation could fully account for Khan’s long involvement in Epstein’s financial affairs.
Richard Khan’s name appears repeatedly in documents connected to Epstein. According to records from the Justice Department’s digital archive of Epstein-related materials, Khan’s name surfaces tens of thousands of times in correspondence, financial records, and internal communications.
The reason is straightforward: he was the money man.
Khan began working with Epstein in 2005 and over time became deeply embedded in the management of Epstein’s finances. He handled wire transfers, signed checks, oversaw tax matters, coordinated financial transactions, and at times distributed money on Epstein’s behalf.
He also later served as co-executor of Epstein’s estate after the financier’s death.
For investigators trying to understand the scope of Epstein’s operations, following the accountant was an obvious step.
Committee members wanted to know whether Khan had seen warning signs in the financial records he handled.
Khan told them he had not.
According to his testimony, he believed Epstein made his money primarily through tax advisory work and financial planning services for wealthy clients. Khan said that the gifts Epstein occasionally gave to women and associates represented only a small fraction of Epstein’s overall spending and did not raise alarms in his view at the time.
“We tracked the expenditures as meticulously as possible,” Khan explained in his opening statement. “Including gifts by Epstein to women and men. The gifts represent a very small fraction of Epstein’s spending. I did not see them as red flags for abuse or trafficking.”
He added that during the years Epstein was alive he never personally observed sexual abuse or trafficking and never received complaints from victims or others.
“I did not see anything that suggested to me that Epstein was abusing or trafficking women or otherwise acting unlawfully,” Khan said.
Still, he acknowledged a troubling possibility.
“However,” he said, “it pains me to think and I deeply regret that I may have unknowingly assisted Epstein in any way.”
That admission — even framed as unintentional — immediately drew attention from lawmakers.
The House Oversight Committee had called Khan specifically because of the belief that financial records might reveal connections that had remained hidden for years.
Chairman James Comer later told reporters that Khan confirmed the existence of several individuals and entities who had transferred significant sums of money to Epstein over the years.
Those names included major figures in American finance and business: Les Wexner, Glenn Dubin, Steven Sinofsky, members of the Rothschild banking family, and investor Leon Black.
Khan told the committee that Epstein appeared to have conducted financial work for these clients, which he believed explained the transfers.
Importantly, investigators emphasized that financial transactions alone do not necessarily indicate criminal activity.
Doing business with Epstein or transferring money to him does not by itself prove knowledge of wrongdoing.
Still, the connections are significant because they illustrate the network of wealthy individuals who interacted financially with Epstein during the years when his activities were largely hidden from public scrutiny.
Another name that surfaced during the discussion was former President Donald Trump.
Trump’s name has appeared in various Epstein-related documents over the years, including uncorroborated allegations included in investigative files.
Chairman Comer said Khan told investigators he had never seen any financial transactions between Epstein and Trump or members of Trump’s family.
However, Representative Suhas Subramanyam later told reporters that the committee learned Epstein’s estate had once reached a financial settlement with a person who made accusations related to Trump.
That detail added another layer to the complex web of allegations surrounding Epstein’s network.
The hearing also touched on connections involving former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, who reportedly had financial dealings with Epstein in the past.
As the testimony continued, some lawmakers expressed skepticism about Khan’s claims of ignorance.
Representative Robert Garcia suggested that Epstein’s massive trafficking operation would have been difficult to sustain without the assistance of professionals who handled his finances and legal matters.
“Epstein’s massive sex trafficking ring would not have been possible without the consistent payments and services of his longtime accountant,” Garcia said.
Garcia pointed to several admissions made during the testimony.
According to the congressman, Khan acknowledged helping facilitate a marriage between two women connected to Epstein — an arrangement that investigators believe may have been designed to help foreign-born individuals navigate the U.S. immigration system.
Khan also reportedly admitted to impersonating Epstein in communications with banks.
Garcia argued that these details raised serious questions about the accountant’s role.
“It’s not credible that he had no knowledge of Epstein’s activities,” Garcia said. “His testimony only raises more questions.”
The congressman stopped short of directly accusing Khan of lying under oath, but his remarks suggested investigators were not fully convinced by the accountant’s explanations.
Another lawmaker, Representative James Walkinshaw, offered a similar critique.
He noted that Khan frequently responded to questions by saying he could not recall specific emails or conversations.
“If he was ignorant of Mr. Epstein’s crimes,” Walkinshaw said, “he was willfully ignorant.”
The phrase “willful ignorance” carries specific legal implications, suggesting a person deliberately avoided learning information that might expose wrongdoing.
Investigators also examined several emails included in the Epstein document archive that referenced Khan.
One email from 2017 appeared to involve medical expenses for women associated with Epstein.
“Bella sent me the latest batch of medical bills for girls,” Khan wrote. “Just wanted to confirm that you do not want to see these and that Bella should pay all medical once girls confirm for accuracy.”
Epstein reportedly responded with a brief message about paying the bills but noting the expenses were becoming excessive.
Another email exchange involved a tuition payment.
According to reports from CNN, Khan appeared to arrange a $3,500 payment for a model’s schooling.
The message raised questions for investigators because references to “school” and payments connected to young women inevitably drew attention given the nature of the allegations against Epstein.
Other communications revealed efforts to route payments in ways that did not directly involve Epstein’s name.
In one example, Epstein asked Khan how an Airbnb payment had been sent.
Khan responded that he used his own PayPal account so Epstein’s name would not appear in the transaction.
“Your name was not involved,” he wrote.
That exchange prompted speculation about why Epstein might have wanted his name removed from certain financial records.
Investigators say there could be many possible explanations, but the pattern nonetheless drew attention.
Emails also referenced purchases of U.S. Open tennis tickets for women referred to only as “the girls.”
In another exchange, Khan discussed buying lottery tickets for “girls” and possibly for filmmaker Woody Allen.
The repeated references to “girls” across different messages have drawn scrutiny from investigators trying to understand the broader context of Epstein’s social and financial network.
One 2011 email showed Epstein instructing Khan to wire $10,000 to a woman named Nadia.
The purpose of that payment remains unclear.
But in the context of the Epstein investigation, even routine financial transfers have become subjects of intense interest.
Another revealing piece of correspondence came from March 2019 — just months before Epstein was arrested on federal sex trafficking charges.
In that message, Epstein’s lawyer Darren Indyke sent documents related to the formation of a company called Truth Robot LLC.
Epstein responded with a short instruction.
“Can’t have my name.”
Indyke replied that the documents would be revised so Khan would sign as treasurer instead.
That exchange suggested an effort to keep Epstein’s name off certain corporate paperwork.
The hearing also revisited an earlier incident reported by the BBC.
According to that report, Khan once asked Epstein’s staff to remove suitcases containing materials from a safe inside Epstein’s Manhattan mansion and deliver them to his home.
Federal investigators later sought access to those suitcases.
Khan reportedly agreed to return them but resisted allowing agents to enter his residence.
He also declined to reveal who had instructed him to remove the contents of the safe.
After Epstein’s death in 2019, Khan and Epstein’s lawyer Darren Indyke were responsible for managing settlements through the Epstein Victims’ Compensation Program.
The fund ultimately paid more than $121 million to over 135 survivors.
Those payments occurred after Epstein’s death and do not imply knowledge of the crimes beforehand, but they illustrate the role Khan played in handling the aftermath of the scandal.
Lawyers representing Khan and Indyke have strongly denied that either man knowingly facilitated Epstein’s abuse.
A statement from Indyke’s attorney emphasized that no victim has ever accused the two men of committing sexual abuse or witnessing abuse.
The statement also said neither man had been told of Epstein’s misconduct during the years they provided professional services.
But the congressional investigation continues to examine the broader network of financial relationships surrounding Epstein.
Among the names mentioned in the hearing, Les Wexner remains one of the most prominent.
Wexner, the billionaire founder of L Brands and former chief executive of Victoria’s Secret, once granted Epstein power of attorney over significant portions of his finances.
That extraordinary level of trust allowed Epstein to manage major financial decisions involving Wexner’s assets.
Wexner has said Epstein ultimately deceived him and misappropriated large sums of money.
Ahead of his deposition before the committee, Wexner released a statement saying he was pleased to testify.
“I was never a participant nor co-conspirator in any of Epstein’s illegal activities,” Wexner wrote. “To my enormous embarrassment and regret, I, like many others, was duped by a world-class con man.”
Another figure connected to Epstein financially is Leon Black, the former chief executive of Apollo Global Management.
Black stepped down from Apollo in 2021 following scrutiny of his financial ties to Epstein.
Emails show the two men communicating and scheduling meetings.
Black has also faced a civil lawsuit in which a woman accused him of rape at Epstein’s Manhattan townhouse roughly two decades ago.
Black has denied the allegation.
Steven Sinofsky, the former president of Microsoft’s Windows division, also appeared in Epstein-related communications.
Reports suggest Sinofsky sought Epstein’s advice regarding negotiations over his departure from Microsoft and shared confidential information about corporate matters.
The relationship indicated a level of trust between the two men.
Hedge fund manager Glenn Dubin has likewise been mentioned in Epstein-related allegations.
Virginia Giuffre, one of Epstein’s most prominent accusers, claimed that Ghislaine Maxwell once instructed her to provide Dubin with a massage — a phrase she said was often used as a euphemism for sexual acts.
Dubin has denied the accusation.
His wife, physician Eva Andersson-Dubin, has also drawn attention because of her past relationship with Epstein and her professional role as a doctor.
Investigators have explored whether Epstein used connections within medical circles to arrange treatments or appointments for women in his network.
Throughout the hearing, one idea continued to surface.
Money can reveal patterns that remain hidden in other forms of evidence.
Richard Khan, as Epstein’s accountant, may hold key insights into those financial patterns.
But his testimony also demonstrated how difficult it may be to determine who knew what — and when.
For now, the congressional investigation continues.
Lawmakers are preparing to hear testimony from Darren Indyke in the coming weeks.
His appearance could shed additional light on Epstein’s financial dealings and legal strategies.
Still, legal experts note that attorney–client privilege may limit how much information Indyke can disclose.
What remains clear is that the Epstein investigation continues to unfold years after the financier’s death.
Each new hearing, document release, and witness testimony adds another piece to a puzzle that investigators are still trying to assemble.
And as lawmakers repeatedly emphasize, when it comes to uncovering the full scope of Epstein’s operations, following the money may prove to be one of the most revealing paths forward.
