Were there investigations or lawsuits that alleged Wexner knew about or facilitated Epstein's crimes before his arrest?

1. The paperwork that brought Wexner into public view: unsealed depositions and court files

Virginia Giuffre’s litigation materials, unsealed in batches by a federal judge, include a 2016 deposition and other filings that name Wexner among more than 150 associates tied to Epstein’s network and contain Giuffre’s allegation that she was trafficked to Wexner multiple times; the unsealed files do not itself produce a criminal charge against him but raised new public scrutiny ^{[1] [2] [6]}.

2. What the Giuffre allegations actually say — and what they do not

The documents attributed to Giuffre claim she was made to wear lingerie and was directed to have sexual encounters with Wexner “more than three” but fewer than ten times and assert he “participated in sex with minors” in her account; those are civil allegations in court filings and depositions, not criminal findings, and reporting notes that none of the prominent figures named in the released files have been charged as a result of those filings ^{[2] [6] [7]}.

3. Wexner’s public position and legal posture

Wexner has denied knowledge of Epstein’s criminal activity and has said he cut ties with Epstein years before federal charges surfaced; he also has accused Epstein of misappropriating funds and has provided documents to investigators about financial irregularities, not about facilitating sex crimes, according to his public statements and interviews ^{[8] [9] [10]}.

4. Civil litigation and corporate probes that touched Wexner or his companies

L Brands and Wexner faced shareholder litigation and corporate probes tied to disclosures about the Epstein relationship and company governance; a shareholder suit alleging an entrenched culture at L Brands led to settlement terms in 2021 tied to governance reforms, and other investor and wrongful‑conduct suits and subpoenas sought documents or testimony about Wexner’s connection to Epstein ^{[11] [4] [12]}.

5. Dismissals, limits of civil claims, and the absence of criminal charges

Reporting indicates at least one civil lawsuit that accused Wexner, as owner of a Manhattan townhouse, of “aiding and abetting” was dismissed when a judge found he could not be held liable in that claim; multiple outlets emphasize that Wexner has not been charged with a crime despite being named in court records and investigative releases ^{[3] [6] [7]}.

6. Investigative releases and ongoing scrutiny — Congress and the media

Federal and congressional document releases — including batches of Epstein estate material made public by oversight panels — plus continuing media reporting and Freedom of Information‑style pushes (and bills aimed at publishing more Epstein‑related records) have kept Wexner’s name in the record and invited further document searches and subpoenas, though available reporting does not show that those releases produced criminal charges against him ^{[13] [14] [15]}.

7. Competing narratives and evidentiary gaps

Two competing narratives appear across reporting: one centers on Giuffre’s detailed civil allegations and unsealed evidence that names Wexner among Epstein’s associates; the other emphasizes Wexner’s denials, his claim to be a victim of Epstein’s financial deception, and the lack of criminal indictment. Media accounts note financial ties, property transactions and social connections but also stress that public records so far stop short of proving criminal facilitation by Wexner ^{[2] [9] [16]}.

8. What sources do not resolve

Available sources do not mention any documentary proof in the public releases that Wexner knew of or directly facilitated Epstein’s sex‑trafficking crimes in a way that produced criminal charges; likewise, the sources do not show a criminal investigation that led to indictment of Wexner — they show civil allegations, document demands, subpoenas and media probes but not a prosecutorial finding of guilt ^{[6] [3] [5]}.

9. What to watch next

Look for outcomes of pending civil litigation (including subpoenas and counterclaims involving figures in Epstein’s network), further batches of released documents from congressional or court repositories, and any prosecutorial announcements — those are the paths by which new, legally decisive evidence would emerge or be ruled insufficient ^{[13] [14] [5]}.

Limitations: this summary relies only on the provided documents and reporting; claims not covered in those sources are noted as not found in current reporting above ^{[1] [2] [3]}.