Thames Valley Police are now assessing whether Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor shared confidential government reports from his decade-long role as UK trade envoy with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. The inquiry follows allegations that Andrew forwarded sensitive briefings — including material on investment opportunities in war-torn Afghanistan — to a man already convicted of soliciting a minor for prostitution.
The charge under consideration: misconduct in public office. The maximum sentence: life imprisonment.
Author Andrew Lownie, whose biography entitled covers the former prince's conduct, told the Daily Mail there is a substantial basis for criminal proceedings:
There are good grounds to investigate Andrew on sex trafficking - plenty of evidence now of women trafficked to him including at Royal Lodge – and misconduct in public office for sharing confidential information to business associates. There is a stronger case against him than Mandelson.
The allegations center on Andrew's tenure as UK special representative for international trade and investment from 2001 to 2011 — a role bound by explicit government confidentiality rules and the Official Secrets Acts of 1911 and 1989.
The specifics are damning in their granularity. According to the allegations, a November 2010 email from Andrew's then-special adviser Amit Patel — containing a report from trade envoy trips to Hong Kong, Vietnam, and Singapore — was forwarded by Andrew to Epstein five minutes after he received it.
Five minutes. Not a lapse in judgment after days of deliberation. A near-instantaneous relay of classified government material to a convicted sex offender who, per the allegations, was "looking for somewhere for money to go."
On Christmas Eve 2010, Andrew allegedly looped Epstein into a confidential brief on investment opportunities in the reconstruction of Helmand province, Afghanistan — a war zone where British soldiers were fighting and dying. Official government guidance for the trade envoy role is unambiguous about the sensitivity of such material:
This may include sensitive, commercial, or political information shared about relevant markets/visits.
This duty of confidentiality will continue to apply after the expiry of their term of office. In addition, the Official Secrets Acts 1911 and 1989 will apply.
Then there is the February 9, 2011, email in which Andrew told Epstein he had visited a private equity firm the week before and "thought of you." This matters because Andrew told BBC Newsnight in 2019 that he had cut off contact with Epstein during a visit to New York in December 2010. The email suggests otherwise.
Vince Cable, who served as business secretary at the time, told the BBC the allegations were news to him:
I was unaware of Andrew... sharing information about investment opportunities [in Afghanistan] before, this is the first I've heard of it.
The man responsible for overseeing British trade policy didn't know what Andrew was doing with the information. Epstein apparently did.
Buckingham Palace issued a statement calibrated to express concern without accepting ownership of the problem. A spokesman said:
The King has made clear, in words and through unprecedented actions, his profound concern at allegations which continue to come to light in respect of Mr Mountbatten-Windsor's conduct.
Note the phrasing: "Mr Mountbatten-Windsor." The distance is deliberate. The palace added that while the specific claims are for Andrew to address, they "stand ready to support" Thames Valley Police if approached. So far, police have not approached the palace.
Kensington Palace weighed in as well — the first time Prince William and the Princess of Wales publicly addressed the Epstein scandal:"I can confirm that the Prince and Princess of Wales have been deeply concerned by the continued revelations. Their thoughts remain focused on the victims.
Former BBC royal correspondent Peter Hunt was unimpressed:
The royals are rattled and rightly so, with the statement from William and Kate failing because it contains warm words, but no hard action.
Hunt went further, calling on King Charles to publicly state that Andrew should testify before US lawmakers and to support legislation removing his brother from his position as eighth in line to the throne:
If he doesn't, Charles runs the risk of his reign being remembered as one where the British monarchy failed to properly support Epstein's victims.
The pattern across every royal statement is identical: sympathy for victims, zero concrete action against the man accused of creating them. The palace expresses "profound concern." William and Kate are "deeply concerned." The Duke of Edinburgh, speaking in Dubai, said it was important to "remember the victims."
Everyone remembers the victims. Nobody moves against the accused.
King Charles stripped Andrew of his titles and dukedom in October and banished him from Royal Lodge to the Sandringham estate. Those are real steps. But Charles is also personally funding Andrew's new life with an annual stipend — an arrangement that undercuts the symbolism of exile. You don't banish someone and then pay their rent.
Meanwhile, Andrew is said to have been offered a 16,000-square-foot palace in Abu Dhabi by his friend Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, the UAE president. Lownie suggested that if charges materialize, Andrew might not stick around to face them:
Assuming the Metropolitan Police and National Crime Agency do bite the bullet and investigate Andrew and they then say there are grounds to charge him, he'll be off to a country without an extradition treaty with UK.
He drew a pointed comparison:
The last thing the Royal Family want is a trial airing their dirty laundry and the fact they have ducked dealing with Andrew for years. He was protected by the Queen and that has continued. His royal relative King Juan Carlos scarpered to Dubai as soon as corruption charges levelled against him.
Andrew holds no sovereign immunity. Charles is the only member of the Royal Family who does. There is nothing in UK law preventing Andrew from being criminally prosecuted and jailed. Misconduct in public office covers serious willful abuse or neglect of the power and responsibilities of an office held, and it carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.
The royals are not strangers to the criminal justice system, though the precedents are considerably less dramatic. Princess Anne became the first Royal Family member convicted of a criminal offense in 2002, fined £500 after one of her dogs bit two children under the Dangerous Dogs Act. The case was brought as "Regina v Laurence, Anne Elizabeth Alice." She also accumulated speeding convictions in 1972, 1977, 1990, and 2000. Her daughter Zara Tindall was banned from driving for six months in 2020 for doing 91mph in a 70mph zone.
Speeding tickets and dog bites are a different universe from allegations of sharing classified government intelligence with a convicted sex offender while that offender trafficked young women.
The crisis reignited after the US Department of Justice released millions of documents associated with Epstein on January 30. Graham Smith, chief executive of the anti-monarchy campaign group Republic, confirmed he reported the allegations against Andrew to Thames Valley Police.
Andrew paid millions of pounds to Virginia Giuffre in 2022 to settle a civil sex case. Giuffre, who alleged she was trafficked by Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell at the age of 17 and forced to have sex with Andrew three times, died by suicide last year. A posthumous book has since been released. Andrew has always denied any wrongdoing.
A police investigation into Peter Mandelson over alleged misconduct in public office has also been launched in the wake of the document release. The Epstein files are not done producing consequences.
King Charles visited Clitheroe, Lancashire, where a man at the train station called out: "How long have you known about Andrew?" The previous week, during a visit to Dedham, Essex, another man shouted: "Charles, Charles, have you pressurised the police to start investigating Andrew?"
The hecklers are doing what the palace statements won't — asking direct questions and demanding direct answers. The institution built on ceremony and tradition now faces a threat that pageantry cannot absorb. Statements of "profound concern" buy time. They do not buy resolution.
Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor sits eighth in line to the throne of a country whose police force is now assessing whether he committed a crime punishable by life in prison. The palace stands ready to cooperate — if asked. The public is already asking.
