Les Wexner and Jeffrey Epstein: The Arrangement Records
Snapshot
Les Wexner’s arrangement record includes direct sexual trafficking allegations, alleged recruitment through the Victoria’s Secret name, disputed security arrangements in Ohio, and the financial authority Epstein obtained from him. Each category requires its own evidence. A business relationship, a survivor’s account and an FBI investigative label establish different things.
Virginia Giuffre’s January 2016 deposition names Wexner as someone to whom she said she was trafficked. Wexner’s February 2026 testimony denied participating in Epstein’s abuse or knowing about it. No criminal conviction of Wexner is established by the records discussed here.
- Maria Farmer’s amended complaint alleges that Epstein and Maxwell assaulted her in Ohio and that security staff prevented her departure. Wexner disputes knowledge and the description of the property.
- The 1997 Santa Monica police report records a modeling appointment linked to Victoria’s Secret and an allegation of sexual battery by Epstein.
- The August 2019 FBI email lists Wexner under secondary co conspirators while explicitly describing the evidence of involvement as limited. That is an investigative designation, not a verdict.
What the arrangement evidence actually says
| Record | Arrangement or experience described | Evidence and limits |
|---|---|---|
| Giuffre deposition | She alleged multiple sexual encounters with Wexner and said Maxwell arranged lingerie. | Sworn testimony. Wexner denies the encounters; the testimony is not a judicial finding against him. |
| March 2011 FBI interview | A redacted interviewee reported an erotic massage for Wexner in New York. | An agent’s interview summary, entered in July 2013. Do not count it as a separate corroborating person without establishing identity. |
| Farmer employment account | An Ohio stay to produce artwork became, in her account, an assault by Epstein and Maxwell followed by confinement. | A civil pleading against estate representatives. It does not allege Wexner personally committed that assault. |
| Arden police report | A promised modeling opportunity led to a scheduled hotel meeting with Epstein. | Contemporaneous complaint. Wexner is not identified as attending or arranging the meeting. |
| Notice of claim against the government | A claimant described Maxwell’s modeling book and promises linked to Victoria’s Secret. | A claimant’s legal submission, not a Maxwell admission or a government finding. |
| Epstein draft to Wexner | Epstein sought a private meeting and invoked shared confidences. | Undated draft. No verified delivery, reply or meaning of its ambiguous language is established. |
Giuffre’s allegations and the clothing distinction
The January 16, 2016 transcript comes from Edwards and Cassell’s Florida defamation case against Alan Dershowitz. It was later filed in Giuffre v. Maxwell as Document 1335, attachment 3, unsealed in January 2024. Giuffre answered that encounters with Wexner occurred more than three times, possibly more than five, but not more than ten. She did not provide a reliable encounter by encounter calendar.
The clothing answers attribute the arrangement to Maxwell. Giuffre described different lingerie and did not identify its brand. She also recalled one encounter involving Sarah Kellen in New Mexico. These are Giuffre’s allegations, not independently verified events.
Maxwell’s April 2016 deposition categorically denied supplying Giuffre with a sexual outfit to wear for Wexner. The question itself does not corroborate the accusation. Her answer belongs beside Giuffre’s account, rather than being omitted or converted into an admission.
The FBI interview and later summaries
The FBI report’s cover page distinguishes the March 17, 2011 interview from its July 5, 2013 entry and drafting dates. The Wexner passage appears on physical PDF page 14, corresponding to page 6 of the interview. It describes an erotic massage in New York and regular contact between Epstein and Wexner. Physical page 19 records identification of Wexner in a photo array.
An FD 302 records what investigators were told. It is not a verbatim transcript, does not itself establish an oath, and does not certify that an allegation was corroborated. Redactions also prevent a simple count of independent witnesses. Repeated versions of one account must not be presented as several accusers.
The April 7, 2011 telephone interview was conducted by lawyers and later submitted in litigation. On physical page 27, the interviewee says Wexner could have relevant information but might not tell the truth. This is a recorded lawyer interview, not the January 2016 sworn deposition. Confusing those documents exaggerates the evidentiary status of the earlier statement.
A July 24, 2025 internal summary contains allegations about Wexner and Epstein, including a sexual explanation for Epstein’s income. The redacted summary provides no adequate basis to treat that assertion as an established financial fact or a proven sexual relationship. Its preparation instructions sought salacious statements already present in the files.
Maria Farmer’s Ohio assignment and alleged confinement
Farmer’s March 2020 amended complaint describes a two month artistic assignment in summer 1996. She alleged that security staff required permission to leave, that Epstein and Maxwell sexually assaulted her, and that staff held her for nearly twelve hours until her father collected her. Her account places control of movement alongside the alleged assault. The estate complaint and its earlier version describe the same episode, not two separate incidents.
The published caption transcript of Wexner’s 2026 testimony records his denial that he knew Farmer or knew she was there. He described Epstein’s house as an adjacent property purchased from Jack Kessler, about half a mile away. Later questioning addressed whether Wexner’s security staff guarded it; he denied knowledge. This caption transcript is a secondary aid to the official video, not a certified congressional transcript.
The later notice of claim provides additional allegations about how the Ohio house was guarded and how the sisters sought help. Its title and opening identify it as a claim against the government over alleged investigative failures. Describing this file as a Maxwell proffer would falsely turn a survivor’s allegation about Maxwell into Maxwell’s own admission.
The Times property investigation reported that Wexner legally controlled the Ohio property before Epstein acquired it in 1992 for $3.5 million. A Wexner linked entity reportedly bought it back in 1998 for $8 million. Those transactions help separate title, residence and security arrangements. They do not resolve who gave security instructions during Farmer’s stay.
What the 1996 complaint confirms
The FBI complaint form stamped September 3, 1996 records an artist’s complaint that Epstein took photographs of her younger sisters, might have sold them, requested photographs of girls at swimming pools, and threatened retaliation. The handwritten account does not name Wexner or describe the Ohio security episode. It supports the existence of an early warning about Epstein, without independently proving every allegation later made about Ohio.
Reporting on the December 2025 release identifies Farmer through her lawyer and explains that she says the intake captured only part of her report. The difference between a surviving intake and a survivor’s fuller recollection should remain visible.
A September 2019 email to the FBI states that its sender had reported Epstein, Maxwell and Wexner in 1996 and had been ignored. It is evidence of a later complaint about the response. It cannot supply missing names or allegations to the surviving 1996 form.
Victoria’s Secret as a recruitment promise
The Santa Monica report describes a May 12, 1997 meeting at Shutters hotel. The complainant said she sent photographs to Epstein, received an appointment through his secretary, and hoped for catalog work. She reported that Epstein tried to undress and grope her. The officer recorded an initial conversation on May 13 and the formal report on May 20.
Gloria Allred’s July 2020 letter identifies the complainant as Alicia Arden and requests an investigation into the police response. Arden said police and prosecutors had not subsequently contacted her. Her account concerns an alleged assault by Epstein; it does not establish that Wexner authorized his recruitment claim.
Maxwell’s July 2016 deposition supplies another important distinction. Asked whether she told anyone that Epstein was a Victoria’s Secret scout or could obtain a job there, she said she did not recall. When counsel sought clarification between a denial and lack of memory, her lawyer instructed her not to answer.
The New York Times investigation republished by bdnews24 reported that company executives had raised concerns in the 1990s about Epstein presenting himself as a recruiter. That reporting raises a question about notice and response. It does not establish a signed recruiting appointment or prove Wexner knew of each subsequent assault allegation.
A March 2020 FBI interview records another redacted interviewee saying Epstein invoked his friendship with Wexner and promised help entering the Victoria’s Secret catalog. She described appointment calls from assistants and unwanted touching during an early meeting. The report supports an allegation that the brand was used as a lure, not that Wexner participated in the appointment.
Company contacts and the limits of their meaning
A preserved Bloomberg account quotes businessman William Mook describing a 2005 visit with marketing executive Ed Razek to Epstein’s Manhattan residence. Mook said women there introduced themselves as models. This remains Mook’s reported account. It does not document a sexual transaction or Wexner’s attendance.
Bloomberg Businessweek’s August 2019 report also examined Victoria’s Secret’s continued use of MC2 represented models after Wexner’s reported break with Epstein. The article described later show appearances and auditions, and recorded the companies’ limited responses. Ordinary modeling work must not be equated with trafficking; the relevant question is whether brand access was used to recruit or control particular women.
Razek’s May 2009 email asked Epstein’s assistant for a contact to order a Ferrari. It establishes a continuing channel between an executive and Epstein’s office. It supplies no evidence of women being arranged for Wexner.
Additional witness accounts
A September 10, 2019 proffer summary records a witness recalling a flight into Aspen and a shopping outing involving Wexner and girls. She interpreted gestures as referring to her. The passage supplies no date for that trip, ages for those present, or sexual act involving Wexner. It should not be combined with surrounding allegations about other people to create a different accusation.
Steve Scully’s August 2019 FBI interview reports that Wexner occupied the first speed dial position on Epstein’s phones. This is evidence about their prominence in the witness’s recollection. Although the page also discusses alleged conduct on the island, it does not identify Wexner as the unnamed man in the nearby grotto account.
Money and property behind the access
The December 2019 prosecution memorandum records a July 25 attorney proffer. Wexner’s lawyers said Epstein obtained power of attorney in 1991, controlled personal finances with little oversight, and acquired a residence and plane at discounted prices. They alleged misappropriation, said $100 million was returned in January 2008, and denied knowledge of sexual misconduct. They also said Wexner questioned a recruiting rumor and Epstein denied it. These are counsel’s representations recorded by prosecutors, not independent findings accepting every claim.
The Manhattan title search distinguishes a 1989 deed to Nine East 71st Street Corporation from a December 2011 deed to Maple Inc., recorded in January 2012 without consideration. A corporate deed does not, by itself, establish the price or date of an earlier sale of corporate shares between Wexner and Epstein.
The corporation’s filings preserve chief executive entries for both Wexner and Epstein. Together with later filings, it provides a corporate ownership trail to investigate. It should not be flattened into a claim that a mansion was simply handed over for one dollar as payment for trafficking.
Pilot Larry Visoski’s November 2021 testimony confirms repeated flights to Columbus and his understanding that Wexner was Epstein’s client. It supports travel and a business relationship. It does not identify a particular woman delivered to Wexner or corroborate a specific sexual encounter.
The 2026 caption transcript records Wexner recalling a roughly $20 million Manhattan sale that he considered fair. That differs from his lawyers’ earlier discounted sale account.
The break in contact and Epstein’s pressure language
| Date or period | Record | What can be concluded |
|---|---|---|
| 2007 and January 2008 | Counsel’s account | Revocation of financial authority and a private repayment agreement were described to prosecutors. The account should not be confused with a court judgment. |
| June 2008 | Reported correspondence | An exchange after the claimed financial break shows contact continued at least into 2008. Financial separation and last communication are different dates. |
| September 8, 2010 | Office contact request | Groff reported being directed to staff addresses when she sought Wexner’s email. The exchange does not establish renewed personal contact. |
| Undated | Draft addressed to Les | Epstein complained that a requested meeting was rejected and invoked shared confidences. The file does not establish that the draft was sent. |
| July 31, 2015 | Fragmentary personal notes | Wexner’s name appears beside references to girls and other topics. The shorthand lacks enough context to identify an event, count victims or assign conduct. |
| July 2019 | FBI case timeline | Wexner appears among subpoena recipients; the next page records an attorney proffer. A subpoena seeks evidence and is not a criminal charge. |
| August 2019 | FBI internal email | Secondary co conspirator listing is accompanied by limited evidence language and contact with counsel. |
| February 18, 2026 | Congressional deposition | The House released its video the following day. This was questioning under subpoena, not a trial or conviction. |
The undated draft invokes “gang stuff” and years of confidences while portraying a complainant’s allegations as extortion. That is Epstein’s self serving characterization. The text gives no reliable definition of the phrase, no verified criminal agreement, and no proof that its recipient accepted Epstein’s account.
The July 2015 notes contain the fragment “34 girls wexner, irs”. It is not a victim count, a schedule or an instruction to provide anyone to Wexner. Without surrounding records that establish meaning, the fragment cannot support a claim that thirty four girls were arranged for him.
Civil proceedings and competing accounts
Dershowitz’s September 2016 affidavit recounts allegations relayed through lawyers involving Wexner, several Epstein properties and lingerie. It also records Wexner’s lawyer rejecting the allegations and saying no money would be paid. Dershowitz framed the matter as attempted extortion; he was advancing his own position, not reporting a court finding.
Wexner’s July 2020 court letter opposed Dershowitz’s effort to obtain discovery. His lawyers said no extortion demand had been made, no settlement reached and no payment or other consideration given. They also rejected an alleged relationship with Giuffre. The extortion narrative itself was therefore contested, including by Wexner’s own legal team.
The November 2021 discovery order nevertheless compelled a limited Wexner deposition. Judge Loretta Preska allowed up to two hours of remote questioning because his personal knowledge could not be replaced by his lawyer’s testimony. That procedural ruling did not determine whether the sexual allegations or extortion theory were true.
The Cordero discontinuance form names Wexner and Victoria’s Secret among defendants in a separate case. The visible document has blank signature lines and an incomplete October 2009 date. It is insufficient to establish an executed settlement or its terms.
The October 2008 judicial opinion addresses Cordero’s allegations against Epstein and dismisses the moving defendants on limitations grounds after rejecting the claimed basis for tolling. Wexner was not one of those moving defendants. That ruling does not decide that Wexner committed abuse, and it cannot be cited as a trial finding that every underlying allegation was false.
Wexner’s responses and the current public record
Wexner’s July 2019 statement said he had cut ties nearly twelve years earlier and had not known of the conduct charged against Epstein. It acknowledged Epstein’s extensive role in his personal finances. The statement is Wexner’s own public account, rather than a factual resolution of survivor allegations.
Reporting on the February 2026 deposition records renewed denials of sexual misconduct and knowledge. Wexner acknowledged writing the suggestive contribution to Epstein’s birthday book and described it as a joke. He characterized their relationship as professional. These admissions establish social contact and authorship, not the truth of the separate abuse allegations.
The published caption transcript records a specific denial of sexual contact with Giuffre. It also records Wexner describing brief visits to Palm Beach, New Mexico and the island, with family or friends, and denying sexual encounters with anyone introduced by Epstein or Maxwell. These are his recollections; the article does not treat them as independently reconstructed itineraries.
The Associated Press report was corrected after a lawmaker’s claim of more than $1 billion transferred or provided by Wexner was withdrawn as a misstatement. That figure should not be repeated as a verified total.
September 2026 reporting records Wexner’s representative saying he provided background information and was told he was not an investigative target. That statement coexists with the 2019 FBI label; neither should be silently substituted for the other. No Epstein related criminal charge against Wexner was identified in this review.
August 2026 reporting says Wexner stepped back as Ohio State medical center board chairman.
What remains unproven
| Claim or inference | Record needed | Present limit |
|---|---|---|
| A verified number of women arranged for Wexner | Identified, distinct accounts matched to dates and supporting records | Repeated documents and cryptic notes cannot supply a reliable total. |
| A completed sexual arrangement on a particular flight | Manifest, destination, witness account and evidence connecting the journey to the alleged act | Travel alone does not establish purpose or conduct. |
| Wexner ordered the Ohio confinement | Contemporaneous instructions, security logs, communications or independently tested testimony | Farmer’s account and Wexner’s denial remain materially different. |
| The brand authorized Epstein to recruit models | Appointment records, contracts or direct authorization | A claimed connection and a genuine business relationship do not establish recruiting authority. |
| Money or property was payment for abuse | Transaction records establishing recipient, purpose and corresponding conduct | Asset transfers and allegations require a demonstrated connection. |
Related EpsteinWiki records
- The New Albany property network provides a separate guide to the Ohio residences and disputed property descriptions.
- The Wexner foundations distinguishes charitable organizations, funds and trusts associated with the family.
- The Abigail Wexner sleuth report examines family correspondence and the limits of Epstein’s draft claims.
Open questions
- Can individual alleged encounters be matched to contemporaneous calendars, travel records and independent witnesses?
- What security logs, employment records and dispatch recordings survive from the Ohio assignment?
- What exactly did company executives report about Epstein’s recruiting claims, and what response followed?
- Which financial transactions were fees, purchases, repayments or misappropriations, and which supporting records remain unavailable?
- Was the undated draft ever sent, and can surrounding correspondence explain the fragmentary notes?
- What investigative steps followed the 2019 subpoena and counsel’s proffer, and what evidence led to the stated limits on the case?
Sources
- EFTA00090773: Proffer account of the Aspen outing.
- EFTA01247113: FBI account of a modeling promise.
- EFTA01248310: Scully interview and speed dial recollection.
- EFTA02422998: Office response to a contact request.
- EFTA01688359: FBI interview account and photo identification record.
- EFTA01657683: Recorded lawyer interview submitted in litigation.
- EFTA02777624: Farmer amended complaint and Ohio allegations.
- EFTA00143419: Notice of claim against the government.
- EFTA00156622: Original FBI complaint form with September 1996 stamp.
- EFTA01649922: Later complaint to the FBI.
- EFTA00792302: Santa Monica police report.
- EFTA02785335: Maxwell testimony about recruiting representations.
- EFTA02731082: Prosecution memorandum recording counsel’s proffer.
- EFTA00175080: Internal co conspirator briefing.
- EFTA01649143: FBI investigation chronology.
- EFTA01110729: Undated Epstein draft.
- EFTA00645002: July 2015 personal notes.
- EFTA01681842: Dershowitz affidavit and contested allegations.
- EFTA00730295: Unsigned discontinuance form.
- EFTA01648946: Internal allegation summary.
- EFTA00082040: Preserved Bloomberg report.
- EFTA01699268: Preserved Bloomberg Businessweek report.
- EFTA02442284: Razek correspondence.
- EFTA00020929: Manhattan title search.
- EFTA01305210: Corporate filing history.
- EFTA02839611: Visoski trial testimony.
- January 2016 Giuffre deposition: original Florida testimony reproduced in the January 2024 court release.
- EFTA02786319: Earlier redacted copy of the January 2016 deposition.
- April 2016 Maxwell deposition: response concerning an alleged clothing arrangement.
- House Oversight release: official February 2026 video announcement.
- Published caption transcript: secondary navigation aid for the Wexner video.
- Wexner’s 2020 court letter: counsel’s denials and account of the litigation contacts.
- Cordero judicial opinion: October 2008 limitations ruling.
- Wexner Foundation statement: July 2019 public response.
- WOSU deposition coverage: February 19, 2026 reporting on the testimony.
- ABC News investigation: correspondence and the financial separation.
- Associated Press February report: testimony and the correction to a financial claim.
- Associated Press September report: later response from Wexner’s representative.
- TIME on Farmer’s complaint: identification and context of the released intake.
- Allred’s letter to Santa Monica police: request concerning Arden’s complaint.
- New York Times investigation: republished account of recruiting claims and corporate concerns.
- November 2021 judicial order: limited compelled deposition and unsealing.
- Axios August report: board role change.