How did Les Wexner and Victoria's Secret transactions benefit Jeffrey Epstein financially?
Executive summary
Les Wexner’s official and financial ties to Jeffrey Epstein gave Epstein direct control over Wexner’s money and assets, which Bloomberg- and New York Times–sourced reporting and later financial reviews say supplied the capital, property and fees that powered much of Epstein’s wealth and lifestyle [1] [2] [3]. The relationship included sweeping powers of attorney, transfers of real estate and other property, and a stream of advisory fees and transactions that investigators and journalists say Epstein used to accumulate cash, acquire luxury assets and establish credibility with other rich clients [4] [1] [2].
1. How Wexner legitimized Epstein and turned him into a financial gatekeeper
Wexner’s recruitment of Epstein in the late 1980s and the privileges he granted—making Epstein his financial adviser, giving him power to sign tax returns, borrow on his behalf, hire staff and make acquisitions—provided Epstein the outward trappings and authority of a legitimate wealth manager, which reporting says helped Epstein win other wealthy clients and access to capital [1] [5] [4]. Forbes and the New York Times trace Epstein’s rise in part to that patronage: Wexner’s name and institutional structures effectively legitimized Epstein in elite circles and enabled him to operate large financial vehicles [2] [1].
2. Direct transfers, property and assets that flowed through Wexner’s accounts
Journalists have documented that Epstein obtained an Upper East Side townhouse, an Ohio estate and a private plane during the years he acted as Wexner’s adviser, assets the Times and other outlets link back to transactions made while Epstein controlled Wexner’s finances or acted as trustee on family trusts [1] [3]. Bloomberg reporting cited by subsequent summaries says some ownership was later shifted into Epstein-controlled trusts for little or no consideration, raising questions about whether assets were effectively moved from Wexner’s empire into Epstein’s control [3].
3. Fees, advisory income and the scale of financial benefit
Forbes’ reconstruction of court filings and financial statements found that Epstein’s businesses generated hundreds of millions in fees over two decades and that Wexner and another billionaire, Leon Black, supplied a very large share of that revenue—estimates put the two as responsible for roughly 75% of Epstein’s fee income in some periods—meaning Wexner’s patronage was not only symbolic but materially supported Epstein’s cash flow [2]. The Times and other outlets report Epstein later “misappropriated” tens of millions from Wexner, a figure Wexner himself cited in later statements about their fallout [1] [3].
4. Access to young women and the Victoria’s Secret connection
Reporting by the Times, Vogue and documentary producers documents that Epstein sometimes used a claimed association with Victoria’s Secret to position himself as a talent recruiter, a role that reportedly facilitated introductions to young women—an allegation that intersects with criminal accusations against Epstein and with Wexner staff complaints that Epstein was inserting himself into model recruitment [6] [5] [7]. Wexner’s authorization of Epstein’s financial latitude, the records show, indirectly created the environment in which Epstein could mix business, social legitimation and predatory conduct.
5. Limits of the public record and competing narratives
While multiple outlets converge on the core: Wexner empowered Epstein financially and that empowerment produced property, fees and other benefits to Epstein, important gaps remain in public records about precise transaction mechanics, valuations and intent—Forbes calls Epstein’s origins of wealth still “shrouded in mystery,” and Wexner’s camp has pushed back, commissioning reviews and emphasizing that Epstein’s formal role at the Wexner Foundation was limited [2] [8]. Critics argue Wexner should have exercised more oversight and some allege complicity or willful blindness; Wexner and his lawyers have portrayed some elements differently, and the Wexner Foundation’s internal report later said Epstein was involved “in name only,” illustrating competing agendas in the available sources [8] [9].