Law&Crime Sidebar - 5 Lies Epstein’s Lawyer Allegedly Told Congress

Starting point is 00:00:00 saying how he knows knows nothing in defiance of actual evidence showing he knew a lot. I think he, again, is perjuring himself. If I'm advising him, I tell him to take the Fifth Amendment because I believe he's guilty of perjury. Jeffrey Epstein's lawyer is now in the crosshairs, not only testifying in front of the congressional committee that's investigating the inner workings of the deceased financier, the sex offender, but now he is being accused of perjury. Let's dive in. Welcome to Sidebar, presented by law and crime.

Starting point is 00:00:30 I'm Jesse Weber. All right, before we even jump into this, I've got to tell you about this app that is amazing. It is called Upside. And what it does is it gets you cash back. Yes, extra cash back on everyday purchases like gas, groceries, takeout. Here's what you do. You download Upside for free. You claim an offer at one of their 100,000-plus locations, and you pay like normal with your card.

Starting point is 00:00:51 Then you just verify the purchase, and just like that, you get money back. So say I need to get gas or I want takeout one night. I'll search for Upside offers first. And after I spend, money appears in my app that I can then transfer right into my bank account. And upsides frequent users earn an average of $254 back a year. So to start getting your cash back, click the link in the description or scan the QR code, use promo code sidebar to get an extra 25 cents bonus on every gallon on your first tank of gas. Let me be clear, I had no knowledge whatsoever of Jeffrey Epstein's wrongdoings.

Starting point is 00:01:21 Those are the words of Darren Indyke. Jeffrey Epstein's former attorney, the co-executor of his estate, he testified in front of the House Oversight Committee that is, investigating the Epstein saga. This is something we were previewing. We were waiting for him to testify. And I want to do a deeper dive into Darren Indyke in light of what he testified to. And considering the name Indyke, when you type that in to the DOJ's website for the whole Epstein files library, when you type in Indyke, comes up 30,000 results. Now, this is a man who has never been arrested. He has never been charged. But to give you an idea about why he is so potential,

Starting point is 00:02:01 important? According to the BBC, there are court filing that show that either Indyke or Epstein's accountant Richard Kahn, who we did a whole sidebar on as well, usually, quote, had signatory authority over virtually all of the accounts held by Epstein. And I'm talking dozens and dozens of accounts. Now, if that's the case, then what were they authorizing payments for and what did they know? Those are the central questions, right? And it should also be noted that after Epstein died, Both Khan and Indyke, they were managing the settlements that were paid out from the Epstein Victims' Compensation Fund to victims. We're talking payouts of over $121 million to more than 135 survivors. So they were definitely a part of Epstein's world.

Starting point is 00:02:45 Now, in the Epstein files, I will tell you also this, to show you how important he is, how central he is, the feds actually created a diagram of Epstein's inner circle. Guess who's right at the top, right above Epstein? Indyke, okay? Now, here is what he had to say in his opening statement to the committee, which was released publicly. I will tell you the deposition itself was private. It's not clear if it's going to be released publicly at a later date. We don't have the full transcript. We don't have any video of it, but we get a sense of some of the things that he said.

Starting point is 00:03:13 So, Indyke said, my complete lack of involvement in that misconduct is a matter of record. Not a single woman has ever accused me of committing sexual abuse or witnessing sexual abuse, nor claimed at any time that she or anyone else reported to me any allegation of Mr. Epstein's abuse. He led two entirely separate lives, his professional one and the other, a private, personal one that caused many others to suffer. Then I did not know what my client did in his private life may be difficult for some to believe, but it is true. And he explained he was only one of several lawyers that Epstein used, that he had a strictly professional relationship with him, adding, my primary role was to provide corporate transactional and general legal services to Mr.

Starting point is 00:03:54 Epstein and his companies, and I did so. And Indyke also provided. a bit more insight into Jeffrey Epstein as a client, like how he had trouble getting approved for a credit card after J.P. Morgan Chase cut ties with Epstein after he was convicted of sex crimes in Florida. Remember solicitation of prostitution, procurement of a minor, solicitation of prostitution, including a minor. That's basically what we're talking about. Quote, it is undisputed that during this time period, Mr. Epstein had difficulty accessing credit cards from major banks. And again, I think this is referring to cash withdrawals that he apparently made for Epstein over the years. Now, Indyke said that he never tried, to get around the bank's policies on cash withdrawals and that he never believed that the money was used for, quote, improper purposes. He said, quote, for a person in Mr. Epstein's financial position with five multi-million dollar residences staffed by dozens of employees and with an extensive travel itinerary, it did not strike me as unusual that Mr. Epstein's business, household and personal needs required large amounts of cash on a regular basis. Now, I'm going to get more to the accusations, but one of the things that Indyke was accused of, he was accused of helping

Starting point is 00:04:59 facilitate same-sex sham marriages for immigration purposes, right, to get around immigration requirements and immigration law. And there was court paperwork from the government's case against J.P. Morgan Chase that said this about an alleged victim, quote, during the latter part of this period, she was forced into an arranged marriage to another victim that was facilitated by defendant, co-executor Indyke, to prevent the other victim from being deported. Indyke and a New York immigration lawyer retained by Epstein prepared the victim for communications with U.S. immigration officials almost immediately after the wedding. When the victim inquired about ending the marriage and leaving Epstein's circle, Indyke repeatedly tried to talk her out of a divorce and threatened that she would lose Epstein's and his associates' protection. Now, Indyke called these allegations 100% untrue.

Starting point is 00:05:47 There were references, by the way, to this marriage or these marriages in the Epstein files, maybe seemingly. So, for example, you have this email from Redacted to Epstein, 2013. Good morning, Jeffrey. We're going now to get marriage license. And she's asking if it's possible to meet with you because she has some questions. Now, in terms of Epstein's crimes and what he was accused of doing, Indyke said, quote, he was adamant that he had no idea anyone involved was underage and personally assured me he would never again let himself be in that position. I believed him.

Starting point is 00:06:17 And I made the mistake of believing Mr. Epstein that he would not again commit a. crime. I deeply regret doing so. Most importantly, I feel horrible for those women who Mr. Epstein abused. So again, that's his justification for continuing his relationship and his work with Jeffrey Epstein after Epstein was convicted out in Florida. Now again, I want to make this clear. We don't have the video. We don't have the transcript of the deposition. But we have kind of his opening statement. We don't know exactly the questions that were asked, right? The tone, all of that. Having said that, this is big. In terms of whether or not Darren Indyke was telling the truth. I want you to listen right now to what Representative Dave Min had to say to reporters.

Starting point is 00:06:56 Look at this. An attorney, a former law professor, had the chance to ask a few different lines of questions earlier with Mr. Indyke. And I have to say, I'm very surprised that he did not take the Fifth Amendment. I think it's very likely he perjured himself over and over and over again. And just to give you a few examples, I'm not going to go into detail, but, you know, he claimed, and I think this is in the statement you all received, that he had no knowledge of any women or girls, and yet that doesn't account for the fact that numerous women have described how he

Starting point is 00:07:25 helped them fix their problems. One woman had described how he had helped her get an apartment. He helped women with their immigration issues. He reportedly told a number of women not to talk to police when the police started investigating Epstein. It's just not credible to claim that you had no knowledge of what was happening. I asked among other things about the $725,000 that he withdrew in cash at the maximum level of $75 to $100 per withdrawal that doesn't trigger federal reporting. He couldn't describe what that was for, just kind of, you know, again, claim no knowledge and don't want to get into the details. You'll read the transcript, but this is just not credible. What is also really something that is incredible is that the FBI and Department of Justice had

Starting point is 00:08:10 never interviewed Mr. Hindyke or Mr. Khan. Even those people were central figures in the Epstein files and the scandal around the rapes, the human trafficking. and all that. And I just want to applaud Robert, Jasmine, Summerlee, who's not here with us, because it's under their leadership that we are moving forward right now. And I think what has become crystal clear over the course of these last few depositions is that these people are going to lie to us over and over and over. And what is really important is that we get the documents because the documents are the things that can actually show us what actually happened here. I suspect he's going to give a few more hours of saying how he knows nothing in defiance of

Starting point is 00:08:47 actual evidence showing he knew a lot. I think he, again, is purging himself. If I'm advising him, I tell him to take the Fifth Amendment because I believe he's guilty of perjury. Yeah, pretty incredible, right? So pleading the fifth, by the way, it's your right against self-incrimination. You don't have to say anything that would incriminate yourself in a criminal case. You don't have an obligation to be a witness against yourself. Representative Robert Garcia also shared a similar feeling releasing the following statement after Indyke's deposition, quote, Darren Indyke played a central role in facilitating Jeffrey Epstein's abuse of women and girls and managing legal strategies that helped Epstein avoid government scrutiny. In his deposition before

Starting point is 00:09:26 the committee, Indyke would not confirm or deny a settlement with Jane Doe 4, who accused Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein of abuse when she was a minor. However, he confirmed the existence of hard drives held by Epstein's private investigators. These hard drives are of great interest to our committee. Survivors and victims of Jeffrey Epstein deserve to know the truth, Oversight Democrats will not stop until there's full transparency about everyone complicit in Epstein's crimes. So is it possible that Darren Indyke committed perjury? For that, I want to talk about him a little bit more. I want to go through some of the mentions of him in the Epstein files, in materials, see what they may tell us.

Starting point is 00:10:02 Like, for example, let me just start here. There is this 2019 account of a Polish former model who worked for Jeffrey Epstein, claims she worked for Jeffrey Epstein as an assistant between 2005 and 2006. Remember, these are allegations, spoke to the FBI. spoke to federal prosecutors, and this is what it said. Epstein told Redacted that there was an investigation and that it had something to do with visas. Epstein told Redacted that they were asking about her parents. Epstein had surprised Redacted with a visit from her parents.

Starting point is 00:10:29 Redacted knew that Epstein was lying about how her parents got their visas. Redacted recalled a time when she was on the island and Epstein told her, do you see the cameras? They're watching me. Redacted did not recall how she had learned about the actual reason for the initial investigation. Epstein's counsel, Darren Indyke, called her into his office and told her not to talk to law enforcement. Later on, the summary of this interview goes on to say, a department of state agent Ben Wolf flew on Epstein's plane and asked who all of the girls were. Epstein told redacted that she should ask Wolf about her immigration status.

Starting point is 00:11:04 Epstein also told her to talk to Indyke, but Indyke could not help. And her interview makes one more important alleged revelation about Indyke. summary says, redacted recalled a Cuba trip where redacted kiss Fidel Castro's cheek. Redacted was called in by Indyke who told her that if she ever needed help to contact him and never talked to the police. Redacted recalled feeling that something was off. How about this account from Lance Callaway? Apparently served as Jeffrey Epstein's personal chef between 2006 and 2009. That's a critical time period. Remember, that was when Jeffrey Epstein was arrested and ultimately pleaded guilty, you know, entered into that sweetheart deal.

Starting point is 00:11:44 pled guilty to the Florida sex crimes charges in order to avoid more serious federal charges. So again, solicitation and prostitution involving a minor, procurement of a minor. So it says this, quote, while Calloway was living on the island, he learned that there was an investigation into Epstein. He then started looking for a new job in New Jersey. He eventually left. Darren Indyke, Epstein's attorney, told Callaway that if someone approaches him with something to not accept it because he could be getting served.

Starting point is 00:12:10 How about this FBI form about an interview with the FBI and federal prosecutor. 2019 where this alleged victim claims that Jeffrey Epstein and his associate, Elaine Maxwell, who as we know, was convicted of sex trafficking serving 20 years in prison. The claim is that she was sexually abused by both of them when she was 14 years old. It says, quote, Redacted's interaction with Epstein faded out. Redacted would make excuses. In approximately 2001, she stopped contact with Epstein and Maxwell. Redacted had a boyfriend at the time who questioned who Epstein was.

Starting point is 00:12:41 Epstein called and screamed at her, telling her how ungrateful. she was. Epstein's attorney, Darren, known to law enforcement as Darren Indyke, contacted, and told her that she owed Epstein $10,000 because Epstein co-signed for an apartment in New York City were redacted and her family lived. At this time, the apartment had been leased out to someone who is not paying the rent. So that raises questions on both sides. You could say, if this is true, Epstein may be contacted Indyke and just said, hey, I know somebody. They need to pay up, explain those circumstances, but not the circumstances of how he allegedly knew this person or what was between them. Or the less charitable way of looking at this could be, if Indyke is asking this, he probably

Starting point is 00:13:24 wanted the full story or maybe knew the full story about what the relationship is here, particularly if you're saying, why would you pay someone's rent or why would you give somebody an apartment? What are the circumstances surrounding this? A lawyer maybe would want all the questions. I don't know, but it's just two ways of looking at this. Is there knowledge of alleged abuse or is there knowledge of alleged abuse? And by the way, did any of this actually happen? not entirely short. There's another account, another aspiring model, claimed that she was a victim of Epstein. And when Epstein was arrested out in Florida in 2006 on those sex crimes, I want you to listen to what she claims Epstein allegedly told her, quote,

Starting point is 00:13:58 Epstein helped redacted with some monthly expenses. By the way, I have to say something, whenever you hear these allegations of Epstein, you know, paying for things, trips, gifts, whatever it is, paying for tuition, whatever it is. That goes to like the sex trafficking component. He was never actually brought to trial on it, but it would have been the idea of, you know, using all of these financial means, commercial sex, right, using force, fraud or coercion to have people engage in commercial sex acts. So that's kind of like that exchange is how it would have been relevant at a trial, I think. But it says Epstein helped redacted with some monthly expenses. She felt that as long as they were friends that he was going

Starting point is 00:14:33 to look out for her. While she was taking the state tests, Epstein reached out and told her that he was thinking modeling agency and he would like for redacted to manage it. Epstein told her she needed to work in the industry for six months. August of 2006, Redacted learned that Epstein had been arrested. Epstein told her this, but she didn't know the details. He told her it was an enemy out to get him. The only info redacted had was from the papers, and it wasn't talked about. It was like an awkward silence. Epstein told her to call Darren Indyke if contacted by law enforcement and not to speak with law enforcement. Epstein did not specifically say not to talk to law enforcement, but to contact Indyke. Epstein told her,

Starting point is 00:15:12 not to introduce him to anybody, and he was not interested in meeting new people for massages. And I want to get to this, too, goes to the knowledge component, again, if we're talking about Darren Indyke or the alleged knowledge, that in October of 2019, so after Epstein's death in jail, there was a Sherry Quigley that was interviewed by federal agents. Now, Quigley at one point had worked for Deutsche Bank, which, as I've talked about before, came under a lot of scrutiny regarding its association and work that it did with Jeffrey Epstein and when it cut off ties. but Quigley had made a filing to the safe S-A-I-F mailbox that was related to certain transactions.

Starting point is 00:15:48 Safe is, by the way, a suspicious activity information form. It's when you flag that something might be, you know, illegal, questionable. It says, quote, Quigley did see the Epstein accounts paying women who appeared to be models of legal age. She also recalled Epstein's attorney, Darren Indyke, withdrawing $7,500 in cash each week. A safe, SAIF, was filed on Indyke. Now, that's big, okay? Again, that's suspicious activity information form. By the way, remember before when you heard about the hard drives and information like that?

Starting point is 00:16:22 We've talked a lot about storage lockers, right? Whether Epstein and his associates locked away materials before they could be found by authorities that were searching as properties. Again, we've dedicated sidebars to this. I want your look at this. So this is from August 2009. It's about a month after Jeffrey Epstein was released from jail in Florida on those sex crimes charges. And it seems that there was a request from Epstein's accuser, Virginia Drew Frey, regarding certain evidence in a litigation. Now, this is an email that Epstein seemingly forwards to his other attorney, Roy Black, and his other attorney Martin Weinberg.

Starting point is 00:16:57 The email is from a William Riley, this investigator that we believe Epstein had hired. And it has the subject Epstein. And it reads, Bob, over the weekend, I learned that Plainianian. Council are looking to get for me the computers and paperwork I took from Jeff's house prior to the search warrant. I have them locked in storage and would like to know what to do with them. They are no longer needed in the criminal case, I assume. Is it possible to give you these items for your review and safekeeping or give it to Darren Indyke or back to Jeff, etc? Now, I think now is a good time to mention that Indyke and Epstein's accountant, Richard Khan, also co-executor of Epstein's estate.

Starting point is 00:17:36 He was also deposed by the House Oversight Committee denied any knowledge of wrongdoing. They were sued. The main allegation, for example, in this 2024 class action lawsuit, was that they enabled and facilitated Epstein's sex trafficking operation and, quote, were also integral in allowing Epstein to escape justice for years by concealing his litany of crimes. And even though they denied the accusations, the estate ended up settling for up to $35 million, but there was no admission of any wrong to it, no admission to doing anything wrong. There was another legal settlement over claims that involved, among other things, that Epstein's attorney, who ABC sources say is Indyke, carefully withdrew money for Epstein to avoid setting off alarm bells. So in other words, limiting withdrawals to $7,500, not the $10,000 threshold that would alert the Treasury Department. In fact, in a settlement of a lawsuit, it was alleged that between 2014 and 2016, Indyke cashed almost 45 separate checks, again, each in the amount of $7,500. You heard him deny this kind of skirting of the rules or the regulations, but in litigation, it was alleged that there were almost a hundred individual withdrawals of $1,000 from Epstein's account through an ATM that was only a short walk away from Indyke's office, but there was no evidence that Darren Indyke was, in fact, the one who made those withdrawals, but just again, something interesting to call out. Now, I also have to call out this, okay, regarding knowledge and thoughts on Epstein.

Starting point is 00:18:58 So at one point, Darren Indyke seemed to attest for Epstein's character. This is when Epstein was going to be sentenced for the Florida criminal charges. So in the paperwork that I believe was sent to the defense attorneys that they then sent to the court of federal prosecutors, it said, quote, Mr. Indyke has written that over the last six years, Jeffrey has funded literally hundreds of thousands of dollars in tuition assistance to many individuals, some of whom Jeffrey has no connection with whatsoever from the preschool to the postgraduate levels. Then there's this alleged account from Indyke that was included. Shortly after I began working for Jeffrey, I experienced a personal and unexpected tragedy. After five years of marriage, my wife and I learned that I was infertile

Starting point is 00:19:41 and we cannot have children in the traditional manner. The recommended treatment protocol required my wife and I to undergo prohibitively expensive in vitro fertilization cycles, which we cannot afford and which were not then covered by the company's medical insurance. It goes on to say, without even a moment's consideration, he, meaning Jeffrey, told me to go for treatment and send him the bills. Having been with Jeffrey only a few months, I was astounded by his generosity and hurried to my desk to call my wife to share the amazing news. In the days and weeks that followed, Jeffrey personally researched infertility issues and shared the results of his research with me. It goes on to say, without Jeffrey's support and stubborn daily

Starting point is 00:20:18 encouragement we would not have. He then recruited his then-girlfriend Galane Maxwell to meet with us to offer assistance with local adoption and overseas adoption procedures and to encourage us to try again. Thankfully, after our fifth cycle, my wife and I were blessed with twin daughters. Although Jeffrey was adamant that we owed him nothing, Jeffrey honored us by agreeing to be the godfather of our children. Something else that's interesting, Bloomberg did this article on how an HSBC branch in Paris had shut down Epstein's bank account in 2007 because it fled. suspicious activity. So apparently a few weeks later, Indyke and his legal representative out in Paris, Marie Joseph Expertin, had emailed about the account. Experton said she would try to figure out what

Starting point is 00:21:01 happened. And then apparently Indyke emails Epstein and asks how hard he wants Experton to push, to find out what's going on, even saying, quote, is there something that she does not know so that she should just back off from the bank? By the way, Indyke's lawyer, Daniel Weiner, sent in a statement to CBS after it was announced that Khan and Indyke were going to be subpoenaed for testimony. Quote, it is worth emphasizing that not a single woman has ever accused either Mr. Indyke or Mr. Khan of committing sexual abuse or witnessing sexual abuse, nor claimed at any time that you reported to them any allegation of Mr. Epstein's abuse. Indyke and Khan did not socialize from Mr. Epstein, and they have always rejected as categorically false any suggestion

Starting point is 00:21:41 that they knowingly facilitated or assisted Mr. Epstein in his sexual abuse or trafficking of women or that they were aware of Mr. Epstein's actions while they provided legal and accounting services to Mr. Epstein. By the way, that is very consistent with the kind of opening statement from Indyke earlier, so you can obviously see why I think the argument would be that lawyers reviewed and maybe even wrote that opening statement or helped write that opening statement. Now, there's a lot more I could get into, but this kind of gives you an idea of what we're talking about here. And here's the deal. For a perjury charge, those can be notoriously difficult to prove, unless it is, you know, black and white.

Starting point is 00:22:14 You say this and I can show it's a lie because you said or did this, right? A lot of times when someone testifies to prove a perjury charge, it's about context, it's about intent, and particularly when you're dealing with a lawyer, it may be difficult to find that key smoking gun, that key direct evidence of knowledge or participation or coordination or involvement in what Epstein was accused of doing, especially if a lot of these communications are subject to attorney-client privilege. But if the committee feels that Darren Indyke committed perjury, they can refer that to the Department of Justice, the DOJ, for potential prosecution. And if this morphs into a real, live criminal case, of course, there could be a potential trial. There could be

Starting point is 00:23:00 more evidence that comes out, more arguments would come out. Because a lot of this is a battle right now for the truth, the truth of what happened and who was potentially involved. Although I will tell you from a political point of view, doesn't seem the DOJ has an appetite. to prosecute anybody right now with respect to the Epstein saga. But who knows, something could change. Just interesting to say the least about Darren Indyke and Jeffrey Epstein's lawyer and what he may or may not have known about his client. That's all we have for you right now here on Sidebar. Thank you so much for joining us.

Starting point is 00:23:30 And as always, please subscribe on YouTube, Apple Podcast, Spotify, wherever you should get your podcast. You can also check us out on NBC's Peacock as well. If you want to follow me, X Instagram, my News Nation Show, Jesse Weber Live, Monday through Friday at 11 p.m. Eastern. I'll see you next. everybody.

Law&Crime Sidebar - 5 Lies Epstein’s Lawyer Allegedly Told Congress

There aren't comments yet for this episode. Click on any sentence in the transcript to leave a comment.