How did Leslie Wexner describe Epstein’s control over his finances in court and public statements?
Executive summary
Leslie (Les) Wexner has publicly and in filings described Jeffrey Epstein as his long‑time financial manager who was granted broad authority over Wexner’s personal finances, later accusing Epstein of misappropriating substantial sums and saying he severed ties once Epstein’s credibility was destroyed [1] [2] [3]. Congressional subpoenas and reporting have sharpened scrutiny of exactly how much control Epstein exercised and what Wexner knew or recovered, but Wexner’s core public line is that Epstein had “wide latitude” to act on his behalf and later betrayed that trust [3] [2].
1. The relationship Wexner himself framed: Epstein as trusted financial manager
Wexner has repeatedly described Epstein as someone he hired to handle his personal finances and philanthropic affairs beginning in the late 1980s, identifying Epstein as his financial advisor from roughly 1987 to 2007 and as the principal client of Epstein’s money‑management operation, language that frames Epstein as Wexner’s trusted money manager rather than a peripheral acquaintance [1] [3].
2. Wexner’s phrasing in public statements: “wide latitude” and trustee roles
In a foundation statement and contemporaneous reporting Wexner said Epstein “had wide latitude to act on my behalf with respect to my personal finances,” and that Epstein served as a trustee of the Wexner Foundation without executive responsibilities—phrases Wexner used to acknowledge delegated authority while drawing a line around formal operational control of institutions he funded [3] [2].
3. Legal posture and the charge of misappropriation: “misappropriated vast sums”
After allegations about Epstein intensified, Wexner’s public and legal posture shifted to accuse Epstein of theft: he asserted that his former advisor had “misappropriated vast sums of money” from him and his family and later claimed a specific figure of about $46 million as misappropriated, language that positions Wexner as a wronged principal seeking to recover assets [1] [4].
4. Admissions of broad authority: power of attorney and asset transfers
Reporting and records cited by news outlets state that Wexner granted Epstein extraordinary powers—reports say Epstein was given power of attorney and in at least some accounts was described as having “unlimited” authority over Wexner’s affairs—which Wexner’s own statements implicitly acknowledge by characterizing Epstein’s latitude to act for him [5] [4] [3].
5. Recovery, severing ties, and the limits of Wexner’s explanations
Wexner’s foundation said ties were immediately severed once Epstein’s credibility collapsed and that some funds were recovered, with “every dollar” of certain returned donations described as originally family money, but Wexner has not publicly spelled out full forensic detail in those statements and did not file a high‑profile civil suit that some commentators have noted would be one way to press recovery claims [2] [4].
6. Congressional subpoenas and contested narratives: scrutiny of the depth of control
Congressional subpoenas and investigative reporting have focused on documents—emails, asset transfers and a 2003 birthday album note among them—that reporters and lawmakers say illuminate how Epstein’s access and control were exercised; while Wexner maintains he was seldom in Epstein’s company during the alleged misconduct, committees now seek testimony to reconcile Wexner’s description of delegated authority with evidence of asset transfers and Epstein’s role as trustee and property holder [6] [7] [8].
7. Why the phrasing matters: accountability versus delegation
Wexner’s language—“wide latitude,” trustee, severed ties, misappropriated—functions in two ways: it acknowledges substantial delegation of financial power while also framing Epstein as a rogue actor who abused that trust, a distinction that suits Wexner’s public defense but leaves open factual disputes investigators and survivors press him to resolve about whether delegation crossed into complicity or willful blindness [2] [9].