Jeffrey Epstein's longtime accountant and personal lawyer, two men who managed his money, his properties, and his estate, told House investigators that no federal authority ever sat them down to ask about the disgraced financier's sex-trafficking operation. Not the FBI. Not the Department of Justice. Not a single prosecutor in any jurisdiction.

Richard Kahn, Epstein's former accountant, and Darren Indyke, his former attorney, appeared before the House Oversight Committee earlier this month. Both men said, under oath, that they had never been formally interviewed as part of any federal investigation into Epstein's crimes, as Fox News Digital first reported.

That fact alone should stop every American in their tracks. Epstein ran a sprawling criminal enterprise for years. He trafficked minors. He died in federal custody in 2019 under circumstances that remain deeply suspicious. His accomplice, Ghislaine Maxwell, was convicted in 2022 on charges of exploiting underage girls. And yet the two men closest to Epstein's financial and legal machinery say nobody from the federal government bothered to question them.

What Kahn and Indyke told the committee

Kahn was blunt. When asked whether any government authority had ever questioned him about Epstein's criminal conduct, he answered plainly:

"I've never been questioned by any government authority."

He told the committee he had received a grand jury subpoena from the Southern District of New York and a separate document request from the U.S. Virgin Islands Department of Justice, but both were narrow in scope. They wanted paperwork, not answers.

As Kahn described it: "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." Nobody asked him what he saw. Nobody asked what he knew. Nobody asked how Epstein's money moved or where it went.

Indyke's testimony followed a similar pattern. Asked whether the DOJ had ever questioned him about Epstein's dealings, Indyke replied: "Personally, no." Pressed further, he added: "I don't believe I have." When asked whether that surprised him, Indyke said it did not: "Given my role as a transactional attorney for Mr. Epstein, no."

That answer deserves scrutiny. Indyke was not some arm's-length contractor. He was Epstein's personal lawyer for years and later served as co-executor of his estate. He and Kahn agreed to settle a class-action lawsuit brought by Epstein's survivors for up to $35 million without admitting wrongdoing. These were not peripheral figures. They were at the center of Epstein's financial world.

Both men say they were deceived

Kahn and Indyke each told the committee that Epstein had personally assured them his 2006 arrest was a misunderstanding. Kahn recounted Epstein's explanation directly:

"Epstein told me his 2006 arrest was a mistake, that he did not know the woman was underage, and that nothing like that would happen again."

Kahn said he believed Epstein at the time. "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," he told the committee.

Indyke offered a nearly identical account. He was aware of Epstein's 2008 plea deal in Florida, in which Epstein admitted to soliciting a minor for prostitution. But Indyke said Epstein convinced him it was a one-time lapse:

"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, for his part, acknowledged he stayed on despite the red flags. He told investigators, as Newsmax reported: "We were in the middle of a financial crisis, and I had a family to support, so I made the wrong decision in staying."

Indyke also told the committee he never witnessed abuse and that no victim had accused him of participating. "Not a single woman has ever accused either me or Richard Kahn of witnessing or participating in sexual abuse," he said during his deposition. In a prepared statement, he added: "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."

Lawmakers aren't buying all of it

Not every member of the committee found these denials persuasive. Democratic Rep. David Min openly questioned Indyke's credibility, the Washington Examiner reported, suggesting that Indyke's sweeping denials under oath could expose him to perjury concerns. "I think he, again, is perjuring himself," Min said.

That is a serious accusation. Whether it leads anywhere remains to be seen. But the broader question is not really about whether Kahn and Indyke are telling the truth. It is about why the Department of Justice apparently never tried to find out.

The investigative gap that Congress is now trying to fill

Epstein died in federal custody in 2019 while facing charges of sex trafficking minors. Maxwell was convicted three years later. In the years between, federal investigators had every reason to pull on every thread connected to Epstein's operation, his money, his properties, his legal structures, his associates. Kahn and Indyke managed all of it.

Yet both men say they were never asked a single question by federal investigators. The only contact they described was document requests, narrow ones focused on estate records, not on the crimes themselves. That is not a thorough investigation. That is a filing exercise.

The House Oversight Committee has now stepped into the vacuum. In addition to deposing Kahn and Indyke, interviewers have called former President Bill Clinton, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, billionaire businessman Les Wexner, and Ghislaine Maxwell herself to deliver testimony. The article notes that none of the subjects interviewed by the committee, aside from Maxwell, has faced charges for their proximity to Epstein.

The committee's work gained new momentum after President Trump signed the Epstein Files Transparency Act in November 2025. The Department of Justice subsequently released a trove of Epstein-related documents on December 19. Both Kahn and Indyke appear in those files. Investigators have also flagged suspicious details surrounding Epstein's death in custody, including troubling actions by the guard on duty that night. Rep. Robert Garcia noted that newly disclosed hard drives are "of great interest to our committee."

The scope of what those files contain is still being assessed. Previously released DOJ documents have already exposed correspondence between Epstein and prominent public figures, raising fresh questions about who knew what and when. The House Oversight Committee has also subpoenaed Attorney General Pam Bondi over the Epstein files, a sign that lawmakers on both sides believe the executive branch has not been forthcoming enough.

The real scandal is the silence

Set aside, for a moment, whether Kahn and Indyke are telling the whole truth. Their claims may well be self-serving. They had every incentive to distance themselves from Epstein's crimes, and their insistence that they were fooled by a serial predator strains credulity, particularly given that Epstein had already pleaded guilty in 2008.

But even taking their testimony at face value, the picture it paints of federal law enforcement is damning. Here were two men who controlled Epstein's money and managed his legal affairs. They sat at the intersection of every financial transaction Epstein made. If you wanted to understand how a convicted sex offender continued to operate, fund his lifestyle, and move freely among the powerful, these were the first two doors you would knock on.

The DOJ never knocked. That is not an oversight. It is a pattern. Calls for a full congressional investigation into Epstein's death have mounted precisely because the federal government's handling of this case, from the lenient 2008 plea deal in Florida to the failure to protect Epstein in custody to the apparent decision not to interview his closest associates, suggests an institution more interested in closing the file than following the evidence.

The Epstein Files Transparency Act forced the documents into the light. The House Oversight Committee is now doing the work that prosecutors should have done years ago. Whether it leads to accountability depends on whether Congress has the will to press harder than the DOJ ever did.

When the government's own investigators skip the most obvious witnesses, the question is no longer just what Epstein did. It is what the system chose not to find out, and why.