What did court and Senate investigations reveal about payments from Leon Black to Jeffrey Epstein?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Court and Senate documents and probes show that Leon Black transferred very large sums to Jeffrey Epstein — at least $158 million documented by an independent Dechert review and Senate investigators have tracked transfers as high as roughly $170 million — and that some of those funds were used to support Epstein’s operations in the U.S. Virgin Islands and to pay or benefit women associated with Epstein, while Black maintains the payments were for tax and estate planning advice [1] [2] [3].
1. What the Dechert internal review found: size, purpose and no criminal finding
Apollo’s outside law firm, Dechert, concluded that Black paid Epstein roughly $158 million between 2012 and 2017 for advisory services related to tax, estate planning and managing complex assets such as art, a summary finding widely reported and relied upon by subsequent investigators [1] [4]. Dechert also reported that Epstein was not a licensed tax attorney or CPA, that some payments lacked formal written engagement agreements, and that many of Epstein’s proposals were unconventional — prompting Dechert to note that some of his ideas “didn’t hold up under scrutiny” — but the firm did not conclude that Black engaged in criminal conduct related to Epstein [1] [4] [5].
2. What Senate investigators (Wyden, Finance Committee) added: more money, broader questions, and referrals
Senate Finance Committee investigators led by Senator Ron Wyden built on Dechert’s work and identified at least $158 million and as much as roughly $170 million in transfers from Black to Epstein, raising new questions about whether the payments were truly compensation for services or effectively untaxed gifts and whether Epstein’s arrangements enabled major tax savings for Black [1] [2]. Wyden’s office publicly said it had evidence that Black’s payments funded Epstein’s activities in the Virgin Islands and asked DOJ, Treasury and FBI for documents while referring findings to law‑enforcement authorities for further review [3]. The committee also sought bank records and asked financial institutions about suspicious‑activity reporting tied to those transfers [6].
3. Claims about tax savings and the dispute over scale
Reporting and the Dechert review present competing estimates of how much Epstein’s advice may have saved Black in taxes: some coverage cites strategies that reportedly saved Black roughly $600 million in estate and trust taxes according to material cited by congressional investigators, while other analyses say Epstein’s work may have helped avoid well over $1 billion — and possibly more — in federal taxes, an area the Senate probe has explicitly flagged for scrutiny [2] [7] [4]. Those divergent figures reflect different calculations and underscore that the committee is asking for underlying documents to test whether the tax outcomes were lawful and properly characterized [7].
4. Additional transactions and red flags: loans, donations and flagged bank activity
Beyond advisory fees, investigators reported loans and gifts tied to the relationship: public reporting notes loans of more than $30 million and a $10 million donation linked to Epstein, and congressional letters sought Bank of America records after the bank reportedly flagged multiple payments with suspicious‑activity reports following Epstein’s death [6] [8]. Court filings and congressional notes also show transfers to multiple women described in Epstein‑related litigation, which investigators say require explanation even as Black has denied wrongdoing related to those payments [9] [10].
5. Competing narratives and limits of the public record
Black’s legal team and allies point to the Dechert review and other defenses that argue the payments were legitimate professional fees for complex wealth‑management work and that the independent probe “found no evidence” Black participated in Epstein’s crimes [4] [5]. Senate investigators and some reporters counter that the size, irregularity, lack of written engagements and downstream uses of funds — including settlement language in a U.S. Virgin Islands settlement stating Epstein used Black’s money to fund operations there — justify deeper scrutiny and possible criminal referrals [3] [1]. Public records compiled by Congress and news outlets provide a substantial factual accounting of transfers and suspicious indicators, but the full documentary record that would resolve tax‑law questions and any criminal exposure remains under review by Senate investigators and referred agencies, so definitive legal conclusions beyond what the probes have publicly disclosed are not yet visible in the sources examined [3] [6].