What did Virginia Giuffre’s sworn statements specifically allege about Prince Andrew and others named in her lawsuits?
Executive summary
Virginia Giuffre’s sworn statements alleged that she was trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell and forced to have sex with Prince Andrew on multiple occasions when she was a teenager, describing specific encounters in London, New York and on Epstein’s Caribbean island and asserting that Epstein paid her after at least one encounter; Prince Andrew has consistently denied the claims and the 2021 civil case was settled out of court in 2022 without admission of liability [1] [2] [3]. The record also shows Giuffre named other prominent figures in earlier filings and declarations as participants in Epstein’s abuse or as facilitators, while courts and media coverage note disputes over the admissibility and credibility of some materials [1] [4].
1. The core allegation against Prince Andrew: multiple sexual encounters while underage
Giuffre’s most direct sworn allegations, first publicly filed in 2014–2015 court papers and reiterated in her 2021 New York complaint, stated she was trafficked by Epstein and Maxwell and was forced to have sex with Prince Andrew at least three times around 2001 when she was 17 — alleging incidents in London, New York and on Little St. James island — and saying Epstein paid her after one London encounter [1] [2] [5].
2. Details Giuffre provided in affidavits and declarations
In the sworn declarations and court filings Giuffre described being recruited into Epstein’s circle by Maxwell, meeting Andrew at a London nightclub and being instructed to “do for [Prince Andrew] what you do for Epstein,” and she claimed Epstein paid her $15,000 following sex with Andrew in London; other testimony referenced group sexual activity involving Andrew at Epstein’s island [1] [6] [7].
3. Claims about other named individuals and Maxwell’s role
Giuffre’s sworn statements portrayed Ghislaine Maxwell as Epstein’s “madam,” alleging Maxwell arranged and supervised meetings where girls were trafficked to powerful men, and her affidavits and filings also implicated other named figures in Epstein’s circle in sexual activity with underage girls — though earlier courts struck some of those affidavits from certain proceedings and litigation over other named defendants produced disputed and contested pleadings [1] [4].
4. Legal posture, denials and contested credibility
Prince Andrew has “unequivocally” denied Giuffre’s allegations, disputing the facts and at times saying he had no recollection of meeting her, while his legal team argued in court filings that Giuffre had a financial motive and sought to profit from the claims; Judge Lewis Kaplan denied Andrew’s early bid to dismiss the case in January 2022, allowing discovery to proceed before the parties reached an out‑of‑court settlement in February 2022 [4] [5] [3].
5. Settlement and its limits for public fact-finding
The February 2022 settlement resolved the civil suit without a trial, included an undisclosed payment and a statement that Andrew made no admission of liability and would not give a sworn statement in the lawsuit, which means many allegations were not tested in open court by cross‑examination and a jury verdict; reporting notes the settlement closed the case but left outstanding public debate over the facts [3] [8].
6. What the available sworn materials do — and do not — prove in a legal sense
Giuffre’s sworn statements provide detailed, consistent allegations about trafficking, Maxwell’s facilitating role, and specific encounters with Prince Andrew and others, and those claims formed the basis for civil litigation and later settlement; however, because some of her earlier affidavits were struck in other proceedings and the Andrew case ended in settlement rather than trial, the public record does not contain a judicial finding of guilt on those specific accusations [1] [4] [3].
7. Competing narratives and institutional responses
Media coverage and legal filings record two competing narratives: Giuffre’s detailed trafficking and assault allegations supported by sworn declarations and contemporaneous assertions, and Andrew’s categorical denials and arguments about motive and memory; institutions — from U.S. courts that permitted the suit to proceed to British police whose investigations and decisions have been criticized — have contributed to the unsettled public record [4] [9] [5].