Jeffrey Epstein's longtime accountant and personal attorney, two men who managed his money, structured his trusts, and handled his paperwork for years, told the House Oversight Committee that federal investigators never interviewed them about the disgraced financier's crimes. Not once.
Richard Kahn, Epstein's former accountant, and Darren Indyke, his former transactional attorney, each sat for depositions before House lawmakers earlier this month. Both said the Department of Justice never asked them a single question about the sex-trafficking operation that Epstein ran for years before his death in a Manhattan jail cell in 2019.
The revelation, reported by Fox News Digital, raises a blunt question: How does the federal government spend years investigating a man accused of trafficking minors and never bother to talk to the people who kept his books and drafted his legal documents?
Kahn's testimony was unambiguous. Asked whether any government authority had ever questioned him about Epstein's dealings, he answered plainly:
"I've never been questioned by any government authority."
He told lawmakers he had received two document requests, one a grand jury subpoena from the Southern District of New York, the other from the U.S. Virgin Islands Department of Justice. But neither asked him to sit for an interview. And neither sought information about Epstein's criminal conduct.
"Both of the requests were for the same thing. They were asking for Epstein's estate documents. They wanted to see his will and his 1953 trust."
Estate documents. A will. A trust. That was the sum total of what federal authorities wanted from the man who managed Epstein's finances. No questions about where the money went. No questions about payments to associates. No questions about the financial architecture that sustained a trafficking network.
Indyke's answers tracked the same pattern. Asked whether he had ever been questioned about Epstein's crimes, Indyke replied: "Personally, no." Asked whether that surprised him, he said: "Given my role as a transactional attorney for Mr. Epstein, no."
When pressed on whether he had ever been asked about Epstein's dealings more broadly, Indyke said: "I don't believe I have."
Kahn and Indyke each told the committee that Epstein personally assured them his criminal behavior was behind him after his 2006 arrest, and that they believed him. Indyke was aware of Epstein's 2008 plea deal in Florida, where Epstein admitted to soliciting a minor for prostitution. Yet Indyke said Epstein convinced him the conduct would not recur.
Indyke told lawmakers:
"He was adamant that he had no idea that anyone involved was underage and personally assured me that he would never again let himself be in that position. I believed him, and I made the mistake of believing that Mr. Epstein would not again commit a crime."
Kahn offered a similar account, saying Epstein told him the 2006 arrest "was a mistake, that he did not know the woman was underage, and that nothing like that would happen again." Kahn added:
"I believed him at the time and never saw what appeared to be a minor in his presence. Had I learned of his horrific behavior, I would have quit work immediately."
As Newsmax reported, Indyke also told investigators: "Not a single woman has ever accused either me or Richard Kahn of witnessing or participating in sexual abuse." Kahn, for his part, acknowledged he stayed on as Epstein's accountant even after the plea deal, telling the committee: "We were in the middle of a financial crisis, and I had a family to support, so I made the wrong decision in staying."
Not every lawmaker found those explanations persuasive. Rep. David Min expressed skepticism about Indyke's claims during the proceedings, according to the Newsmax account. The committee's broader investigation into Epstein's network and finances continues.
The depositions land in the middle of an escalating fight between Congress and the Justice Department over what the federal government knew, and what it chose not to pursue, about Epstein and his network of associates.
President Trump signed the Epstein Files Transparency Act in November 2025, compelling the DOJ to release records related to the case. The department released a trove of Epstein documents on Dec. 19. But the House Oversight Committee has pushed for more, and the Justice Department indicated it would not release additional case files, prompting further congressional action.
That standoff has already produced sharp confrontations. The House Oversight Committee subpoenaed Attorney General Pam Bondi over the DOJ's handling of the file releases. The committee vote to issue that subpoena reflected bipartisan frustration with the pace and scope of disclosure. And as one former chairman noted, a timely DOJ briefing on the Epstein files could have made the subpoena unnecessary, but the department failed to provide one.
Meanwhile, the documents that have been released keep surfacing details that raise their own questions. Emails from the DOJ Epstein files showed a Democratic senator's son courted the disgraced financier for an investment fund. Other records revealed how a Hollywood publicist opened elite doors for Epstein long after his criminal history was public knowledge.
The picture that emerges is not one of a thorough, aggressive federal investigation that left no stone unturned. It is a picture of an investigation that somehow missed, or chose to skip, the most obvious witnesses.
Lawmakers on Capitol Hill have been conducting a broader series of interviews tied to the Epstein case. The committee has called former President Bill Clinton, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, billionaire businessman Les Wexner, and Epstein's accomplice and former romantic partner Ghislaine Maxwell to deliver testimony.
Maxwell was convicted in 2022 on charges of exploiting underage girls. She remains the only person in Epstein's orbit to face criminal consequences for direct involvement in his crimes. None of the other subjects the Oversight Committee has interviewed have been charged for their proximity to Epstein.
That fact alone should trouble anyone who expects the justice system to follow the money, follow the paper trail, and follow the people who made the operation run. Epstein did not traffic minors in a vacuum. He had lawyers who structured his affairs. He had an accountant who managed his wealth. He had a network of powerful people who visited his properties, flew on his planes, and benefited from his generosity.
And the Department of Justice, the institution charged with holding the powerful accountable, never sat down with the two men who arguably knew the most about how Epstein's money moved.
Kahn and Indyke may be telling the truth when they say they had no knowledge of Epstein's crimes. They may have genuinely believed his assurances. They may have been deceived by a man who deceived many people over many years.
But that is not the point. The point is that federal investigators never bothered to find out. They never asked. They never tested those claims under questioning. They requested estate documents and moved on.
Epstein died in federal custody in 2019 while awaiting trial on charges of sex trafficking minors. His death was ruled a suicide. The case was supposed to continue, the investigation into his network, his finances, his enablers. Instead, the public got silence, sealed files, and a Justice Department that now says it has nothing more to release.
The Epstein Files Transparency Act forced some of that material into the open. The House Oversight Committee is doing what the DOJ apparently declined to do: asking questions of the people closest to Epstein's operation. The answers may not be satisfying. But at least someone is finally asking.
When the government's own investigators skip the accountant and the lawyer, the question stops being what Epstein got away with. The question becomes what the investigators were trying to avoid finding.
