Victoria’s Secret and L Brands

UpdatedSeptember 8, 2026

ByEpsteinWiki

By Victoria’s Secret – https://www.victoriassecretandco.com/media/resources/assets as an EPS file (archive URL: https://web.archive.org/web/20210820181846/https://www.victoriassecretandco.com/static-files/df306096-291b-4464-aa1b-a52557966cd7), Public Domain, Link

Snapshot

Jeffrey Epstein never held a verified position at Victoria’s Secret or its former parent, L Brands. He was not an authorized model scout, casting director, photographer, or company executive.

His access came through Leslie “Les” Wexner, the retail billionaire who transformed Victoria’s Secret into an international brand.

Wexner employed Epstein as a personal financial adviser and granted him power of attorney in 1991. That authority allowed Epstein to act in important financial and property matters for the person who controlled Victoria’s Secret, The Limited, and a growing retail empire.

Epstein used the prestige of that relationship when approaching young women. Multiple accounts describe him claiming that he could secure Victoria’s Secret modeling opportunities. Model Alicia Arden filed a police report in 1997 after Epstein allegedly assaulted her during what she believed would be a Victoria’s Secret modeling interview.

Reporting also indicates that senior company executives learned during the 1990s that Epstein was presenting himself as connected with Victoria’s Secret. Wexner has said that he confronted Epstein after the issue was reported and prohibited him from making such claims. Epstein reportedly denied doing so.

The evidence establishes a powerful relationship between Epstein and Wexner, repeated use of the Victoria’s Secret name by Epstein, and contact between Epstein and people within the company’s professional orbit. It does not establish that Victoria’s Secret formally employed Epstein or that its models and ordinary employees participated in his crimes.

Victoria’s Secret, The Limited, and L Brands

Victoria’s Secret was founded by Roy and Gaye Raymond in 1977. In 1982, Wexner purchased the stores and catalog through his retail company, The Limited.

Under Wexner, Victoria’s Secret became one of the most recognizable lingerie businesses in the world. Its marketing increasingly depended on catalogs, fashion shows, photographers, model agencies, celebrities, and highly publicized “Angel” models.

The corporate names changed as Wexner’s retail holdings developed:

The Limited operated as the principal corporate identity during much of the early period.
The company became Limited Brands in 2002.
Limited Brands changed its name to L Brands in 2013.
L Brands separated Victoria’s Secret into an independent public company in 2021.
The remaining L Brands corporation became Bath & Body Works, Inc.

Victoria’s Secret & Co. confirmed that it completed its separation from Bath & Body Works in August 2021.

The distinction matters. The present Victoria’s Secret & Co. is an independent corporation. It should not automatically be treated as identical to the Wexner controlled L Brands organization that existed during Epstein’s relationship with Wexner.

Epstein Entered the Retail Empire Through Les Wexner

Epstein’s connection to Victoria’s Secret began with Wexner, not through employment by the company.

Wexner and Epstein reportedly met during the mid 1980s through insurance executive Robert Meister. Epstein presented himself as a financial expert capable of managing the affairs of extremely wealthy clients.

Wexner hired Epstein to manage portions of his personal finances. Epstein eventually became far more than an outside investment adviser. He participated in financial planning, property transactions, charitable affairs, staffing decisions, and projects connected with Wexner’s personal holdings.

A released document titled “Jeffrey Epstein: Career in Finance” describes Wexner as a client of Epstein’s financial management business and presents their association as a successful professional relationship involving real estate and other projects.

The document appears to be an edited promotional biography rather than an independent audit or investigative finding. It is valuable because it shows how Epstein or people working for him described the relationship. It should not be treated as objective proof of every claim it contains.

The 1991 Power of Attorney

In 1991, Wexner granted Epstein power of attorney.

According to reporting based on the document, the authority allowed Epstein to undertake significant actions for Wexner, including borrowing money, signing tax returns, hiring employees, making acquisitions, and conducting financial transactions.

This was an extraordinary delegation of personal authority.

It did not make Epstein a Victoria’s Secret employee. However, it gave him the appearance of speaking with the confidence of the company’s controlling figure. To people outside the corporation, the difference between acting for Wexner personally and acting for Wexner’s businesses may not always have been obvious.

Epstein could point to genuine authority in one area while implying authority in another.

That distinction is central to understanding how the Victoria’s Secret name became useful to him.

Epstein Had No Verified Official Role at Victoria’s Secret

No verified employment record establishes that Epstein worked for Victoria’s Secret, The Limited, Limited Brands, or L Brands.

There is no public evidence that the company appointed him as:

A model scout
A casting director
A photographer
A talent manager
A marketing executive
A corporate officer
A board member
A modeling agency representative
An authorized recruiter

Contemporary reporting nevertheless found that Epstein communicated and met with company executives, attended Victoria’s Secret fashion shows, and moved through the company’s wider modeling and social environment.

EFTA00014526 contains a forwarded copy of reporting about Epstein’s contacts with L Brands executives and Victoria’s Secret models. It states explicitly that Epstein was never employed by L Brands.

The document proves that this reporting was circulated among attorneys involved in Epstein related litigation. Because the underlying material is a news report, it does not independently prove every event described.

The Victoria’s Secret Recruitment Claim

Epstein allegedly told young women that he could help them obtain modeling work with Victoria’s Secret.

The claim was powerful because it combined three things:

A famous global brand
A genuine relationship with the man who controlled the brand
The hopes of young women seeking modeling careers

An aspiring model did not need to understand the legal boundary between Wexner’s personal financial adviser and a company representative. Epstein’s access to Wexner, fashion events, executives, models, luxury properties, and private aircraft could make his representations appear credible.

The New York Times investigation reported that Epstein used his connection with Wexner to obtain wealth, status, and access to women. The investigation identified accounts in which Epstein presented himself as capable of arranging Victoria’s Secret work.

The evidence supports the conclusion that Epstein used the brand’s prestige as a recruitment device. It does not show that Victoria’s Secret authorized those representations.

Alicia Arden’s 1997 Police Report

Alicia Arden was a model and actor who said she was told that Epstein wanted to discuss appearing in the Victoria’s Secret catalog.

In 1997, Arden met Epstein at a hotel in Santa Monica, California. She said Epstein asked her to undress, grabbed her, and attempted to remove her clothing.

Arden reported the incident to the Santa Monica Police Department.

The police report is important because it predates the Palm Beach investigation by years. It documents a Victoria’s Secret related representation being used in connection with an alleged sexual assault during the period when Epstein was managing Wexner’s affairs.

Arden’s account was not created in response to Epstein’s 2019 arrest or the later publicity surrounding his relationship with Wexner. It entered a police system in 1997.

The existence of the report proves that Arden made the allegation at the time. It does not mean that every detail was adjudicated in court. Epstein was not prosecuted over Arden’s report.

Reports to L Brands Executives

One of the most consequential questions is whether company leadership learned that Epstein was claiming a Victoria’s Secret affiliation.

The New York Times reported that two senior executives separately warned Wexner during the 1990s that Epstein was presenting himself as a recruiter for the brand.

Wexner’s representatives have offered a narrower account. According to a statement reported by Vogue, the issue was raised with Wexner on one occasion. Wexner then confronted Epstein, told him that claiming an association with Victoria’s Secret violated company policy, and prohibited him from doing it again. Epstein reportedly denied making the claim.

These accounts agree on one important point: a concern about Epstein invoking Victoria’s Secret reached Wexner.

They differ over how many warnings occurred and how effectively the problem was addressed.

The public record does not contain a complete internal investigative file showing:

Who submitted each complaint
The exact date of each warning
What evidence was presented
Whether the company interviewed the affected women
Whether the complaints were recorded formally
Whether executives notified law enforcement
Whether Epstein’s access to company events was restricted afterward

The absence of this information prevents a complete reconstruction of the corporate response.

Maria Farmer and the Wexner Property

Maria Farmer worked for Epstein as an artist and art adviser.

In 1996, Farmer stayed at a property on the Wexner estate in New Albany, Ohio, while completing an art project. She alleged that Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell sexually assaulted her there.

Farmer said she attempted to leave but was prevented from doing so for a period by security personnel. She later reported Epstein and Maxwell to federal authorities.

Farmer did not allege that Victoria’s Secret hired her or directed the alleged assault. The relevance of the location is institutional access. Epstein was able to use a property within Wexner’s controlled environment while Farmer was working for him.

Wexner has denied knowing Farmer and has denied knowledge of Epstein’s abuse.

The available evidence establishes that Farmer gave investigators an account involving a Wexner property. It does not establish that Wexner personally witnessed the alleged assault or ordered anyone to detain her.

Models, Fashion Shows, and Epstein’s Social Access

Epstein reportedly attended Victoria’s Secret fashion shows and associated with models and company executives.

Fashion shows offered an unusually valuable social environment. They brought together models, agencies, photographers, corporate leaders, celebrities, financiers, and wealthy guests.

Epstein did not need a corporate title to benefit from being seen in that environment. Attendance reinforced the impression that his claims about the brand were credible.

A former Epstein employee reportedly said that some Victoria’s Secret models visited Little St. James. Presence on Epstein’s island is relevant to mapping his social network, but it does not establish that every visitor knew about or participated in criminal activity.

Similarly, appearing at a fashion show or knowing a Victoria’s Secret model does not establish trafficking.

The significance lies in the accumulated appearance of access.

Ed Razek and Epstein’s Manhattan Residence

Ed Razek was a senior L Brands executive who played an influential role in Victoria’s Secret marketing and model selection.

A released record recounts an allegation that businessman William Mook accompanied Razek to Epstein’s Manhattan residence in 2005 to discuss an investment opportunity.

According to the account preserved in EFTA00014526, young women who described themselves as models for Epstein greeted the visitors.

The document proves that this account appeared in reporting forwarded during Epstein related litigation. It does not establish what Razek knew about the women, their ages, or Epstein’s crimes.

The reported visit is nevertheless relevant because it shows contact between Epstein and an executive closely associated with selecting and promoting Victoria’s Secret models.

Razek’s reported contact with Epstein should not be confused with proof that he participated in Epstein’s trafficking operation. No criminal finding in the released record establishes that conclusion.

Jean Luc Brunel and MC2 Model Management

Epstein also developed a documented relationship with French modeling agent Jean Luc Brunel.

Brunel operated modeling businesses including MC2 Model Management. Witnesses and court records alleged that Brunel supplied young women to Epstein and helped facilitate his access to models.

Epstein reportedly financed or supported MC2 and provided Manhattan accommodation used by models connected with the agency.

L Brands hired models represented by numerous agencies, including models associated with MC2. That professional overlap does not establish that Victoria’s Secret knew about trafficking or requested that Brunel or Epstein provide victims.

The evidence supports three separate conclusions:

Epstein had a documented relationship with Brunel.
Brunel operated modeling agencies whose models worked throughout the fashion industry.
Some MC2 represented models obtained work connected with L Brands.

The evidence does not establish that L Brands created, financed, or knowingly participated in an Epstein and Brunel trafficking pipeline.

Agency representation and criminal recruitment cannot be treated as the same activity without evidence connecting them.

Epstein’s Access to Wexner Assets

Epstein’s relationship with Wexner involved properties and assets that substantially increased Epstein’s wealth and social standing.

The most prominent example was the Manhattan residence at 9 East 71st Street. The property had been connected with Wexner before becoming Epstein’s home.

The mansion became one of the principal locations associated with Epstein’s abuse and social network.

The edited biography preserved in EFTA00589409 openly describes Epstein’s Manhattan residence as formerly belonging to Wexner. The document presents the property as a symbol of Epstein’s success.

Epstein was also associated with an aircraft formerly connected with Wexner. Aircraft, residences, staff, and financial authority gave Epstein the infrastructure of an extremely wealthy man before the public had a clear explanation of how he accumulated his fortune.

These assets did not belong to Victoria’s Secret merely because Wexner controlled the company. They were part of the personal and financial relationship between Wexner and Epstein.

That legal distinction does not diminish their practical value to Epstein. The properties and aircraft strengthened his credibility with young women, business figures, academics, bankers, and potential clients.

New Albany and the Wexner Business Environment

Epstein participated in projects and property affairs in New Albany, Ohio, where Wexner developed an influential residential and business community.

The edited career document in EFTA00589409 describes Epstein and Wexner as collaborating on New Albany development work.

Because the document is promotional, it should not be treated as a complete corporate record. It nevertheless demonstrates that Epstein’s own public image relied heavily on presenting Wexner as a partner, client, and source of prestigious projects.

This relationship went beyond introductions at social events. Epstein could point to real property involvement, genuine financial authority, and access to Wexner’s private environment.

No evidence establishes that every New Albany business or resident had a relationship with Epstein.

Wexner’s Claimed Break With Epstein

Wexner has said that he ended his professional relationship with Epstein in 2007.

In his official 2019 letter about Epstein, Wexner said that he severed the relationship after discovering that Epstein had misappropriated vast sums of money from him and his family.

Wexner said funds were recovered and transferred to the Wexner Foundation. Contemporary reporting placed the charitable transfer at more than $46 million.

Documents released later indicate that some contact continued after 2007. Wexner’s representatives have said that the date referred to firing Epstein as financial adviser, revoking his power of attorney, and removing him from financial accounts rather than necessarily ending every communication immediately.

The evidence therefore supports a distinction between termination of formal financial authority and complete cessation of personal contact.

Wexner has consistently said that he did not know about Epstein’s criminal conduct while employing him.

The Reported $100 Million Repayment

Documents released in 2025 and 2026 added important financial detail.

An investigative memorandum reportedly records that Wexner’s attorneys told federal prosecutors that Epstein repaid approximately $100 million after Wexner accused him of misappropriating money.

Financial Times reporting describes the repayment as part of a private resolution following the discovery of financial discrepancies.

Wexner has confirmed that Epstein returned a substantial amount of money but has not publicly supplied a complete accounting of every transaction.

The reported repayment raises significant questions about the origin and movement of Epstein’s wealth. It does not, by itself, establish that L Brands or Victoria’s Secret funded Epstein’s crimes.

The relevant financial relationship was principally between Epstein, Wexner, the Wexner family, and related personal or charitable structures.

L Brands’ 2019 Review

After Epstein’s July 2019 arrest, the L Brands board retained the law firm Davis Polk & Wardwell to conduct a review of Epstein’s relationship with Wexner and the company.

The review was described as thorough and independent.

Public reporting has not produced a complete report detailing:

Every interview conducted
Every document examined
All findings about Epstein’s company access
The warnings reportedly given to senior executives
Epstein’s attendance at company events
Any communications involving models or agencies
The board’s conclusions about corporate responsibility

The absence of a complete public report limits independent evaluation of what L Brands found.

The existence of the review proves that the board considered the relationship serious enough to require outside legal examination. It does not prove that the review found criminal corporate conduct.

Corporate Culture Allegations

The Epstein relationship became one part of a broader controversy over leadership and workplace culture at Victoria’s Secret.

Employees and models made separate allegations involving harassment, bullying, discrimination, retaliation, and inappropriate conduct within the company’s professional environment.

These allegations should not all be attributed to Epstein. They involved different people, different conduct, and different periods.

However, the overlap is relevant to corporate governance. Shareholders alleged that the board failed to exercise adequate oversight over both Epstein related risks and a wider culture in which powerful executives faced insufficient accountability.

The company and its directors denied wrongdoing.

Shareholder Litigation

L Brands shareholders filed derivative lawsuits against Wexner and other directors and executives.

The complaints alleged that company leadership permitted a culture of harassment and failed to address reputational and governance risks, including risks created by Wexner’s relationship with Epstein.

A derivative lawsuit is brought by shareholders on behalf of a corporation. Allegations in a complaint are not judicial findings.

The cases did not result in a trial establishing that L Brands knowingly participated in Epstein’s crimes.

The $90 Million Settlement

In 2021, L Brands reached a settlement resolving shareholder litigation in Ohio and Delaware.

Under the agreement, the separated companies committed $90 million to workplace and governance reforms. Bath & Body Works and Victoria’s Secret each agreed to provide half of the funding.

According to Reuters’ account of the settlement, the reforms included changes to sexual harassment and retaliation policies, employee training, complaint procedures, board oversight, and restrictions on agreements that prevented discussion of underlying harassment allegations.

The settlement resolved claims accusing the former board of allowing a culture of harassment and maintaining ties to Epstein.

The defendants continued to deny wrongdoing. The settlement did not constitute an admission that L Brands or Victoria’s Secret participated in Epstein’s trafficking operation.

Wexner’s Departure

Wexner stepped down as chief executive and chairman of L Brands in 2020.

His departure occurred while Victoria’s Secret faced declining sales, changing consumer expectations, leadership controversies, Epstein related scrutiny, and plans to restructure the business.

It would be inaccurate to identify Epstein as the only reason for Wexner’s departure. The company was experiencing several major commercial and governance problems.

It would be equally inaccurate to claim that the Epstein relationship was irrelevant. The association damaged Wexner’s reputation and created serious questions about judgment, oversight, and corporate access.

The 2021 Corporate Separation

In August 2021, Victoria’s Secret became an independent public company.

The former L Brands corporation changed its name to Bath & Body Works, Inc. The L Brands board announcement explains the separation and corporate name change.

The separation did not erase the history of the Wexner era. It did create two legally distinct companies with new governance structures.

The present Victoria’s Secret & Co. should therefore be described as the successor to the separated Victoria’s Secret business, not as the same corporate organization that existed when Epstein had access to Wexner.

The 2026 Congressional Deposition

In February 2026, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform questioned Wexner under oath about his relationship with Epstein.

The committee subsequently released the full deposition video.

Wexner acknowledged hiring Epstein, granting him power of attorney, and visiting Little St. James once with his wife. He denied knowing about or participating in Epstein’s crimes.

Wexner described Epstein as a highly effective con man who deceived him and stole substantial sums.

Recently released investigative documents had identified Wexner among people federal agents considered contacting as alleged or potential coconspirators following Epstein’s 2019 arrest. Such an internal investigative designation is not a criminal charge or finding of guilt.

Wexner has never been criminally charged in connection with Epstein.

Reuters reported that Wexner denied seeing Epstein with underage girls and maintained that he knew nothing about the abuse.

The deposition increased scrutiny of the financial and institutional support Epstein received. It did not produce a judicial finding that Wexner or the Victoria’s Secret corporation participated in trafficking.

Why the Victoria’s Secret Name Mattered

Victoria’s Secret offered Epstein something more useful than a formal job title: a credible story.

He had access to the company’s controlling billionaire. He moved around people associated with the brand. He attended fashion events. He knew modeling agents. He possessed luxury homes and aircraft. He could appear to an aspiring model as someone capable of changing her career.

The brand’s value to Epstein therefore rested on perceived authority.

His recruitment claim could work even if it was unauthorized.

This is the central institutional lesson. Powerful names can be exploited by people who possess enough genuine access to make false representations believable.

What the Evidence Establishes

The available evidence establishes that:

Wexner controlled Victoria’s Secret during the principal period of his relationship with Epstein.
Wexner employed Epstein as a personal financial adviser.
Wexner granted Epstein power of attorney in 1991.
Epstein obtained extensive authority over Wexner’s personal financial affairs.
Epstein was never a verified employee of Victoria’s Secret or L Brands.
Epstein represented or implied that he could arrange Victoria’s Secret modeling work.
Alicia Arden filed a 1997 police report after an alleged assault connected with a supposed Victoria’s Secret modeling interview.
Concerns about Epstein claiming a Victoria’s Secret affiliation reached Wexner.
Wexner said that he confronted Epstein and prohibited him from making such claims.
Epstein attended Victoria’s Secret events and communicated or met with people in the company’s professional orbit.
Ed Razek reportedly visited Epstein’s Manhattan residence in 2005.
Epstein had a documented relationship with Jean Luc Brunel and the modeling industry.
Properties and assets connected with Wexner contributed to Epstein’s wealth and credibility.
Wexner said he ended Epstein’s financial authority in 2007 after discovering misappropriation.
L Brands commissioned an outside legal review in 2019.
Shareholder litigation raised Epstein related corporate governance allegations.
L Brands agreed to a $90 million governance and workplace reform settlement without admitting wrongdoing.
Victoria’s Secret and Bath & Body Works became separate public companies in 2021.
Wexner testified before the House Oversight Committee in 2026 and denied knowledge of Epstein’s crimes.

What the Evidence Does Not Establish

The available evidence does not establish that:

Epstein was an authorized Victoria’s Secret recruiter.
Victoria’s Secret formally employed Epstein.
L Brands directed Epstein to recruit models.
Every company executive knew that Epstein was abusing women and girls.
Every Victoria’s Secret model who encountered Epstein was a victim or participant.
Models represented by MC2 were necessarily recruited for Epstein.
L Brands knowingly financed Epstein’s trafficking operation.
The present Victoria’s Secret & Co. participated in conduct occurring before its 2021 separation.
Every allegation in a police report, civil complaint, or investigative file has been adjudicated.
Wexner’s power of attorney made Epstein a corporate officer.
Wexner’s visit to Little St. James proves knowledge of criminal conduct.
The shareholder settlement was an admission of trafficking or other criminal activity.
An internal FBI reference to an alleged or potential coconspirator constituted a criminal charge.
Wexner has been convicted of an Epstein related offense.

Investigative Assessment

The Victoria’s Secret connection was both real and misrepresented.

The real connection was Epstein’s extraordinary relationship with Wexner. Epstein possessed financial authority, access to Wexner’s properties, contact with company executives, admission to fashion events, and proximity to the modeling industry.

The misrepresentation was Epstein’s apparent claim that he had authority to recruit for Victoria’s Secret.

These two facts are not contradictory. The genuine relationship made the false recruitment claim believable.

The most serious unresolved institutional question is not whether Epstein appeared on an employee list. The evidence indicates that he did not. The more important question is what company leaders did after learning that a powerful adviser to their controlling executive was invoking the company’s name with aspiring models.

The released record does not provide a complete answer.

The appropriate conclusion is therefore narrow but significant: Epstein exploited genuine access to Wexner and the Victoria’s Secret environment to enhance his wealth, prestige, and credibility with young women. The public evidence does not establish that the company formally authorized his recruitment activities or knowingly joined his trafficking operation.

Key Takeaways

Epstein’s Victoria’s Secret access came through Les Wexner.
Wexner gave Epstein exceptional authority over his personal finances.
Epstein had no verified formal position with Victoria’s Secret or L Brands.
Epstein allegedly used the Victoria’s Secret name to approach aspiring models.
Alicia Arden documented one such alleged incident in a 1997 police report.
Concerns about Epstein’s representations reached senior leadership during the 1990s.
Wexner said that he confronted Epstein and prohibited him from claiming a company affiliation.
Epstein continued to move through fashion, modeling, and L Brands related social circles.
The relationship with Jean Luc Brunel created a separate and more extensively documented modeling agency connection.
Wexner said that he dismissed Epstein after discovering financial misappropriation.
L Brands’ outside review has not produced a complete public report.
The 2021 shareholder settlement required substantial governance reforms but contained no admission of wrongdoing.
The current Victoria’s Secret & Co. has been independent from the former L Brands corporation since 2021.
Wexner denied knowledge of Epstein’s crimes during his 2026 congressional deposition.
The evidence supports institutional scrutiny without treating every Victoria’s Secret employee, executive, or model as connected with Epstein’s crimes.

Primary Evidence Sources

EFTA00589409 contains an edited biographical document describing Epstein’s financial relationship with Wexner, their New Albany activity, and the former Wexner ownership of Epstein’s Manhattan residence. It documents how the relationship was presented but is not an independent financial audit.
EFTA00014526 contains forwarded reporting about Epstein’s contacts with Victoria’s Secret models, L Brands executives, MC2, fashion shows, and Ed Razek. It confirms that the material circulated in Epstein related litigation but does not independently prove every reported event.
EFTA00172284 contains reporting about Wexner’s statement that Epstein misappropriated vast sums of money. It documents the public account of their financial rupture.
Wexner’s 2019 letter contains Wexner’s own explanation of the relationship, the alleged misappropriation, the recovery of funds, and his denial of knowledge about Epstein’s conduct.
House Oversight release of Wexner’s deposition provides the official video of Wexner’s February 2026 testimony.
SEC filing on the L Brands separation documents the separation of Victoria’s Secret and the change of L Brands’ corporate name to Bath & Body Works.

External Sources

PostedDecember 8, 2025