Law&Crime Sidebar - Ex Prince Andrew Arrested Over Epstein Ties

Episode Date: February 19, 2026

Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, formerly known as Prince Andrew, Duke of York, has been arrested in the United Kingdom on suspicion of misconduct in public office. The charge is based on an alleged breach of trust stemming from new Epstein documents. Law&Crime's Jesse Weber and litigator Rich Schoenstein take a closer look at the most damning messages between "The Duke" and the convicted sex offender.PLEASE SUPPORT THE SHOW: You’re 30 seconds away from being debt free with PDS Debt. Get your free assessment and find the best option for you at https://PDSDebt.com/sidebar.HOST:Jesse Weber: https://twitter.com/jessecordweberLAW&CRIME SIDEBAR PRODUCTION:YouTube Management - Bobby SzokeVideo Editing - Michael Deininger, Christina O'Shea, Alex Ciccarone, & Jay CruzScript Writing & Producing - Savannah Williamson & Juliana BattagliaGuest Booking - Alyssa Fisher & Diane KayeSocial Media Management - Vanessa BeinSTAY UP-TO-DATE WITH THE LAW&CRIME NETWORK:Watch Law&Crime Network on YouTubeTV: https://bit.ly/3td2e3yWhere To Watch Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3akxLK5Sign Up For Law&Crime's Daily Newsletter: https://bit.ly/LawandCrimeNewsletterRead Fascinating Articles From Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3td2IqoLAW&CRIME NETWORK SOCIAL MEDIA:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lawandcrimeTwitter: https://twitter.com/LawCrimeNetworkFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/lawandcrimeTwitch: https://www.twitch.tv/lawandcrimenetworkTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@lawandcrimeSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Andrew Mountbatten, Windsor has officially been arrested. Now, this is on suspicion of misconduct in public office. He has been in the Epstein files. He's been part of the Epstein conversation for quite some time. This is a major, major development and escalation. But what he was arrested for and whether or not they could successfully prosecute him, that's what we got to talk about. We're going to break it down right now.

Welcome to Sidebar. Presented by Law and Crime. I'm Jesse Weber. So for weeks now, we've been going through all of the EPSCTS. files, right, the document releases, page after page of emails, internal reports, archive communications, and the question sitting underneath all of it has been very simple. Is any of this actually going to lead to anything? I mean, we just did an episode on the fallout for the high-profile politicians, the business

leaders. We've been seeing that. And then what just happened? If you've been watching the news today, you have heard that the Thames Valley Police arrested Andrew Mountbatten Windsor, formerly known as Prince Andrew, the Duke of the Duke of York on suspicion of misconduct in public office. This carries potentially life in prison. Happened reportedly just after 8 a.m. local time, six unmarked police vehicles show up at Andrews Place. Oh, and he was taken into custody on his 66 birthday. Now, he remains in custody

at the time of this recording. At this point, it doesn't appear he's officially been indicted, so just arrested on suspicion of this charge. But I will tell you, if the charges follow, okay, this would mark, it's already been marked, a historic moment you have a senior member of the British royal family arrested in connection with actions tied to official government duties. Now the Thames Valley Police issued a statement early on that read as part of the investigation we have today arrested a man in his 60s from Norfolk on suspicion of misconduct in public office and are carrying out searches at addresses in Berkshire and Norfolk. The man remains in police custody at this time. Now that's standard for authorities over there to not

identify the person that they arrested. But King Charles III. So we're talking about Andrew's brother, later released the statement, okay? And this is what it said. I have learned with the deepest concern the news about Andrew Mountbatten Windsor and suspicion of misconduct in public office. What now follows is the full, fair, and proper process by which this issue is investigated in the appropriate manner and by the appropriate authorities. In this, as I have said before, they have our full and wholehearted support and cooperation. Let me state clearly the law must take its course. As this process continues, it would not be right for me to further on this matter. My family and I will continue in our duty and service to you all.

So basically, in my view, that's the king saying, Andrew, you're on your own. We cannot even have the appearance of being involved in this. We cannot have even the appearance that we're affecting this investigation or tainting this investigation or getting involved in this investigation. And I would say this is not surprising considering what. Andrew's already been stripped of his royal titles. He was already ostracized by the family by all account. And I want to back up on that for a second, because if you're just hearing this now, you might be probably thinking, wait a second, wait a second. Andrew was arrested. Is this about Jeffrey Epstein? Is this about allegations of sex crimes? No. This is about Epstein. There is an arrest, but it's not in the way that you think. Okay? So it starts off just to give you some background. Jeffrey Epstein. In the late 1990s, early 2000s, Epstein, as we know, cultivated relationships with politicians, billionaires, celebrities, and royalty. One of those relationships was with Andrew, formerly Prince Andrew, second son of Queen Elizabeth II. They were photographed together. Andrew stayed at Epstein's

homes, apparently. They moved in overlapping circles through Epstein's then-girlfriend, Galane Maxwell, or associate Galane Maxwell. And for years, it was framed as very controversial and as bad judgment. Embarrassing, maybe not criminal. Then in 2015, Virginia Joufrey filed a civil lawsuit, alleging that Jeffrey Epstein and Galane Maxwell trafficked her and that she was forced to have sex with Andrew, including when she was just 17 years old. Andrew denied the allegations, denied meeting her, questioned the authenticity of a photo showing them or seemingly showing them together. In 2019, he attempted to repair the PR damage with that now infamous BBC Newsnight interview, you know, the pizza alibi, the claim that he couldn't sweat, it collapsed almost immediately.

And within days, Queen Elizabeth removed him from public duties. In 2022, he settled Jeffre's civil lawsuit for an undisclosed amount, admitted no liability. And after that, it seemed, like the story might be over. Andrew kind of retreated from public life, but here's the thing. The Epstein story didn't die. Andrew was actually stripped of his royal titles, and then in January of 26, the U.S. Department of Justice released another massive dump of Epstein files, and buried in those documents was something that shifted the focus entirely. This brings us to what we're talking about today. It was about Andrew's official government role. Between 2001 and 2011, Andrews served as the United Kingdom Special Representative for International Trade and Investment. This is a formal government

position. It's a trade envoy, a crown servant. And in the release communications, the emails, it seems that investigators found messages suggesting that Andrew allegedly shared official trip reports and what appeared to be a confidential investment brief, so sensitive information, with Jeffrey Epstein, and that this was in 2010. So this was two years after Epstein's 2008 conviction in Florida. Remember solicitation of prostitution? Remember of a minor two? And that detail matters. Because in 2010, Andrew wasn't just a royal family member. He was serving in an official government capacity. And under UK law, crown servants are bound by duties relating to the handling of sensitive government information. The Official Secrets Act of 1989, which is the relevant

version here, specifically protects information relating to international relations. That's the key. That seems to be what investigators are now examining. All right, so by the way, we're still kind of in the beginning stages of 2026, but I will tell you, if you got debt, the threat to your financial health, that stays the same. Debt is a silent killer, interest compounds, fees stack up, your financial problems multiply. It doesn't need to stay that way. Our sponsor, PDS debt, has helped hundreds of thousands escape debt, reduce what they owe and take back control. So whether it's credit cards, personal loans, medical bills, PDS debt has customized options to help you pay off debt faster, and there's no minimum credit score that's required.

They look beyond the numbers at your unique financial situation and design personalized plans to help you pay off debt faster and put money backward belongs in your pocket. Plus, they're a plus rated by the Better Business Bureau. Every month you wait is going to cost you more. Your way out, though, it starts right now. Don't wait for debt to strike again. Break free in 30 seconds. Get your free personalized assessment and the best option for you at pdsdette.com slash sidebar. That's pdsdestdebt.com slash sidebar. Now this arrest itself, it isn't under the official Secrets Act, at least not yet, but it has been reported that Andrew has been arrested on suspicion of misconduct in public office. That is a separate common law offense carries its

own legal threshold. The Crown Prosecution Service, so the main prosecutorial arm out in the UK, defines it this way. A public officer acting as such commits the offense if they willfully neglect their duty or willfully misconduct themselves to such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public's trust in the officeholder without reasonable or, excuse or justification. And the Court of Appeal has described the threshold as a high one, that you're talking about conduct that is, quote, so far below acceptable standards as to amount to an abuse of the public's trust. And I'm going to get into that a little bit more about what that means. But in Andrew's case, the alleged misconduct is the sharing of sensitive government

information with a private citizen, Jeffrey Epstein, who should not have received this, right? That seems to be what the main argument would be. And I want to walk you through how we got to this arrest because after the January 2026 document dump, there were emails that surfaced from 2010. So again, two years after Epstein's conviction. And they showed what appeared to be ongoing communication between Epstein and someone identified in the files as the Duke. Now, the Duke, presumably Andrew, the Duke of York. And here's what those emails purportedly contained. November 30th, 2010, Andrews Special Advisor Amit Patel sends him an email. And it reads, Sir, please find attached the visit reports for Vietnam, Singapore, Hong Kong, and Shenzhen

in relation to your recent visit to Southeast Asia. And attached are official documents, government records generated seemingly during Andrew's work as the UK's trade envoy. According to the files, Andrew appears to have forwarded those reports, the email, their contents, to Jeffrey Epstein. And there's no forwarding message, no context given. There's another email from December 24th, 2010, so Christmas Eve. Andrew appears to write to Epstein and includes what he describes as a confidential brief on investment opportunities in Afghanistan's Helmland Province. Here's what the email says.

So first of all, it says 2J, and then it ends from A. Attached is a confidential brief produced by the provincial reconstruction team in Helmand Province for international investment opportunities. These are not exclusive to Helmand Province, but principally focused on that province. I'm going to offer this elsewhere in my network, including Abu Dhabi, but we're going to would be very interested in your comments, views, or ideas as to whom I could also usefully show this to attract some interest. I have sadly already found out that Gates Foundation doesn't do anything in Afghanistan. So at this time, Helmand Province in 2010, this is our understanding.

This was at the height of the war in Afghanistan, and there were British troops that were on the ground there. And Andrew is allegedly sending information about this to Jeffrey Epstein. So it kind of gives you an idea of what we're talking about. You have a former prince, the king's brother, arrested on his birthday, police searching royal properties too, by the way. We'll talk about that. And a criminal investigation into whether sensitive government information was improperly shared with, you know, a convicted sex offender. Now, the late Virginia Jufre, her family released a statement today. And you'll remember, I mentioned this, Joufrey was the woman who alleged that Epstein trafficked her to Andrew.

And by the way, her posthumous memoir kept this story alive. Her family said, at last, today our broken hearts have been lifted at the third. the news that no one is above the law, not even royalty. He was never a prince. For survivors everywhere, Virginia did this for you. I want to talk about this. Okay, let me bring in my friend Richard Schoenstein, litigator, trial attorney. Okay, your reaction to what? The first senior royal to ever be arrested? This is a big development in the Epstein saga. So first, your reaction to this news? So my reaction to the news is, Really? This guy's been under suspicion of sex trafficking and sexual abuse for years and years and years.

But the thing that's made the British government angry is he maybe gave away some money secrets. And that's what they're going to prosecute him for. The argument would be, isn't this probably the more straightforward path to prosecution than sex-related crimes if you just look at the emails? It is probably more straightforward. And there may be a higher degree of proof. I give you that. But, you know, no one is facing consequences for what went on on that island. And so now this guy's going to be prosecuted because he sent an email with some trade secrets. Well, I want to get into that. But I guess the question is in the overall scheme, and look, you're right. He hasn't been officially charged with respect to any sex-related crimes. I hear you. But in the idea of, releasing the Epstein files, transparency, accountability. Talked earlier about the statement from Virginia Jufre's family, there are those to say, okay, this is a measure of some sort of accountability for someone having a connection

to Jeffrey Epstein. And again, look, he hasn't been officially indicted, at least in the time of this recording. He hasn't been officially charged or found guilty. But obviously people looking at this, and he did a full episode about what's accountability, people resigning, information coming out, ridicule investigations. This is something. This is something against the former prince. I mean, it wasn't just that he was stripped of his titles and was essentially banished. Now he's, there's an investigation.

Yeah, well, it's something. It's potentially something. And I think that the being stripped of his title and his royal duties was somewhat significant and probably a more significant step than anything we've seen in the United States. where we refuse to release the full files, we refuse to do anything about it, we just ignore it or downplay it. So there's something being done.

And if it makes some of the survivors or their families, if it alleviates some of what they've had to suffer over the years, then I'm happy for it. I just think it's a little off target. I mean, he could be looking at life in prison. I'm not sure that's exactly what would happen, but there is a possibility. Well, that's the other thing, Jesse. We have to see how it plays out. I mean, bringing, as you know, I mean, you follow more of these cases than anybody, bringing charges and getting a conviction and putting someone in jail, those two points are far removed, and we have to see what happens with this process going forward. It was interesting. It was a surprise. It's a surprise. Well, here's the thing. We did an episode on Epstein's connection to the Royals. We knew there was some sort of investigation. I was not expecting a full

blown arrest and now potential charges. I did look up what the Crown Prosecution Service says about misconduct in public office. And the Crown Prosecution Service is the main prosecuting arm in Britain. So to be clear, we're talking about arrest under suspicion. There hasn't been a formal charge yet. We'll see if that actually develops. They have to gather and assess evidence, which let's talk about what they might be searching at the properties. But first, if you talk about a charge, it is a public officer. So here I think they'd be able to say that, right? He was acting as a official government envoy. This public officer willfully neglects to perform their duty and or willfully misconducts themselves that this amounts to an abuse of public trust

and there is no reasonable excuse or justification. Now, what is some of the evidence that may be used here? Well, there's an alleged email where Andrew allegedly shares files that are marked as confidential brief with Epstein on potential investments in southern Afghanistan by the the way British forces were based there. Now, Andrew allegedly said at the time that, look, I was just seeing comments or views or ideas that maybe Epstein might have had to attract interest. I think that's what it was reported. There's also this allegation that Andrew forwarded his official reports on his visits to Asia that was sent to him by his special advisor to Epstein, just minutes after he got them, no forwarding message, no context. So when we go back to with

the law, I looked this up. It says that this public officer had to have been acting as such. needs to be distinguished from somebody who is merely acting while a public officer, but more acting as a public officer. So in that context is where they allegedly engaged in misconduct. There has to be a nexus between the willful neglect, the breach of duty, the willful misconduct, and that power, that authority, those responsibilities. What does willful mean? According to the Crown Prosecution Service, willful means deliberately doing something which is

wrong, knowing it to be wrong, or with reckless and different. as to whether it is wrong or not, that this person was aware of the duty and knew that the way in which they carried out or neglected that duty was capable of reaching the seriousness threshold that amounts to misconduct. So you don't have to prove that the defendant themselves came to that view. All you have to show is that they had the means available to them to make such an assessment or that the defendant was reckless. And in order to establish this is a serious issue, the seriousness of the effect, it's whether the conduct amounted to a serious abuse of the public's trust. And that not every willful neglect of duty or misconduct is going to reach

that bar. It is a high bar of seriousness. But you have to basically say, and this is, I'm reading a quote, an affront to the standing of the public office held. The threshold is a high one requiring conduct so far below acceptable standards as to amount to an abuse of the public's trust in the office holder, and this is going to be determined by a jury. So, Rich, I threw a lot out you. I guess the question is, what are some things you're going to be looking out for to determine, is this a serious breach of trust, misconduct in public office based on what we're seeing right now? Well, that was a great summary and good research of what would be required to prove these charges. So I think this is an interesting case, because to me, willfulness,

seems kind of obvious if he was giving away information that he had no right to give away to Jeffrey Epstein, that seems fundamentally willful. But the big question here that the courts will have to ponder before it even gets to a jury is, was this really in furtherance of his official duties? And I don't know enough about what his official duties were at the time as a prince and whatever other offices he held to know if passing on this information could have arguably been part of the duty. He's going to say, I think, this really had nothing to do with my official duties. I was providing some information to a friend on his request that I had access to. I wasn't trying to negotiate with Epstein on behalf of the United Kingdom. I wasn't trying to transact business. I wasn't

representing the crown. I was just passing on some data the guy asked for. I did not have any ill intent, et cetera. And even though a jury might conclude, you had no business passing on that confidential governmental information to this maniac. Was it part of his official duty? I think that to me is the toughest part of the case. So I think that's the easiest part. I think he's in a position where he gets this information. He's handing it over. And I, or allegedly, handing it over. I guess the question is, what was he gaining out of this? Like, whether even it rises to the seriousness or whether it rises to the level of what he would be punished, I looked up the Crown Prosecution Service. They said some of the things to factor in as did the conduct

involve the exploitation or attempted exploitation of vulnerable people? Did the conduct have an operational impact that harmed the public interest or undermined public trust either in the role held by the suspect or the relevant public service or institution? What was the suspect's motive? Was it personal gain? What was the severity of the actual or likely consequences? Was there a risk of death or serious injury? How egregious was the abuse of power? Did the willful misconduct or breach of a duty have the effect of benefiting the wider public interest rather than being injurious to it? So I guess if you look at a textbook example, if he gave up like the location of British forces and he did it for money and they got killed, that's like textbook, throw the book

at him, right? This one, I'm curious, like, what did he have to gain by it? Who was harmed by it? I think those are the things that I'm looking out for. Oh, right. So this is a financial crime, right? Because it's trade information. It's information about transactions on behalf of the United Kingdom. Is that the way you understand it? That's the way I understand. That's the way I understand. I mean, if you're in a position where you're getting this material and you're sharing it, and you could say just in it of itself, that's breaching his responsibilities, his duties, this is confidential information or sensitive information, that I think is as a level. I just don't know.

It's like an insider. It's like an insider trading case. Who are you harming? When you give away secrets of a company so that someone can make decisions about buying and selling stock with more information than others, you're harming the other stockholders. Or in this case, you're potentially harming the United Kingdom itself because you're providing somebody with secret information that they can enact trades on. Now, a question I would have on either side of this case is, did Jeffrey Epstein use this information? What did he do with it? Did he pass it on?

Did he trade on it? If he traded on it and made some financial gain, then that's to the financial detriment of somebody else, potentially of the United Kingdom or of others who were involved in the trading. So there could be, or the public. So there could be. Or the public. So there very well could be victims, just as there are in insider trading and other kinds of financial fraud cases. I guess the other thing is, too, is whether or not he had authorization to share this allegedly sensitive government material. And I wonder if you'd say, look, there was nothing so confidential about it and I couldn't share it, or maybe it was public knowledge or was about to be. That might be tough, but I think that does go into whether or not this is a deliberate

breach of official duty. Yeah, in a case involving disclosure of confidential and you're always going to look at, is that information truly confidential? Does it exist somewhere else in the public form? Was it obtainable by Jeffrey Epstein from somebody else? Or was it stale at the time it was released? What measures did the government take to protect the confidentiality of that information? That goes to both whether it was confidential and the level of Andrew's misconduct in Fennie. If he didn't know it was a secret, I mean, I don't know how he wouldn't know.

know, but if he didn't know, it's labeled confidential or something like that. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Well, right. You always look, you know, where is the information kept? How is it marked? How is it stored? You always look at stuff like this. So it's an interesting case. I mean, I was a little hard on it on the outset because I think there are more important issues here arising from these Epstein files. But the case itself is interesting from the perspective of just a business fraud case and how you would prosecute something like that. What I'm about to say, I want to be clear, I am not making this comparison on its face,

but I guarantee you, as this comes up today, you are going to hear the term Al Capone. I thought of the same thing. You're absolutely going to hear that. I mean, seriously, it's like you couldn't get him on the other stuff. It was tax-related crimes, right? So, again, I'm sure you're going to hear that today, not making the comparison that Prince Andrews is anywhere in the realm of Al-Capon,

but whatever. Anyway, look, there are two adjunct. that were reportedly searched by authorities. You have one in Berkshire, one in Norfolk. He had lived in Windsor Royal Lodge in Berkshire earlier this month. Now he has this new home in Sandryham, this estate in Norfolk. Two parts of that is. What do you think they're looking for in connection with this alleged crime? And B, I don't know the whole rules of UK law, but assuming it's similar to we have here in the United States, what happens if they find something else during the course of their search that's not related to the current breach, the alleged breach of trust.

That's the best question. So I'll take the easier one. The first question is easier. What they're looking for is anything with a plug or anything that can plug into something, right? Any computer, any tablet, any phone, any external media, any device that might have data on it or might have evidence of things that were sent to or received from Jeffrey Epstein or anybody else or might show where he kept this kind of data or if he was harvesting it and maintaining it in some form. So they're looking for all of that. I mean, I doubt they're looking for physical printouts of confidential information. That doesn't seem very likely.

But usually these days, when you bust into a home in a case like this, you're going to carry out every computer you can find and hand it over to people who know, how to search them. Your second question is much harder. What happens if they carry out a computer and they find, you know, 10 metric tons of pornography? I don't know the answer to that. That doesn't seem to fit the crime and the elements that you outlined, which is probably part of the British government's answer to why are you prosecuting this potentially, but you didn't prosecute the other stuff. That's because this particular crime, if it was committed, is actually a crime if it's carried out by a public official. And that's why they feel they can go after it, plus the evidence.

So if other stuff comes out, I don't know. I mean, I think we know everything we need to know about Andrew already in that regard. But we'll see. It gets complicated because here in the United States when you have a search warrant that is very specific for what you're looking for, but you discover evidence of other criminality. It's not like it can just be ignored. So I'm curious. I don't know what else did I find, but something I had to address. Okay, by the way. If you go in with a search warrant, if you're going with a search warrant and you find like bodies in the house, yeah, I mean, you can prosecute that. Yeah, it's not like, well, it wasn't in the search warrant. We're just going to ignore it. Let me ask you this. You saw the statement from the king,

Okay? Basically, it's like, Andrew, you're on your own, right? Yeah, and I think people are going to think about this king and the way he's handled relations now with one of his sons and one of his brothers, and that's going to be part of his legacy. But I actually thought this particular statement by the king was appropriate. He should stay out of it. Government officials should stay out of it. I've been critical in the United States about government officials piping up too much, during prosecution. So I think the king's saying this is going to be carried out like any other criminal matter, and I'm not going to say anything more about it. And my family is going to go about doing our royal duties. I actually think that's probably exactly right. Before I let you go, this is the big part. Is this going to spark the United States Department of Justice or any,

you know, U.S. Attorney's Office to do something, right? Because people will say, look at the U.K. They're going after the highest of the high, how come we're not seeing an investigation or criminal charges against anybody here in the United States? Now, on one hand, I've talked about this before, based on case summaries and internal memos in the Epstein files, they have said there was no videos or photographs of other people abusing young girls other than Epstein and Maxwell. But could there be an investigation into something else that's not related to sex crimes? And the problem I see is I wonder if this will spark the DOJ basically on public pressure to do something more. I don't know if there's anything more. But also, we can't forget that it was last summer when the DOJ and the FBI released a memo saying, quote, we did not uncover evidence that could predicate an investigation against uncharged third parties.

So essentially, they'd have to go back on that statement unless they say, hey, that was with respect to sex crimes. there might be something else to look at here. I don't know. Got to ask you. Yeah, I think that the fact that this is happening in the UK, well, first of all, he's not a public official anymore. He's an ex-former official. So this would be to me more like if they went ahead and prosecuted Bill Clinton. He's an ex-president. He's not in power. I mean, he holds some influence, but he's not in power. And so that would be the analogy to me not going. after people who are currently in power. I think there's very little chance that DOJ, which is the legal department now of the people in power, would go after the people in power. That's just not

the way it's set up. That's not what DOJ has become. I don't see any way that changes unless down the road there's a change in who's in charge of DOJ. The only way to change what DOJ does is to change who's in charge. And, you know, people will have a chance to do that at the ballot box in some manner this year, and then they'll have another chance in a couple of years. And that's the only thing. I don't think what happens in England is going to, I mean, it'll be the subject for a lot of discussion like the one we're having, but it's not going to amount to a change in the way business is done here. Rich Schoenstein, thanks so much for coming on and jumping on so quickly to do this breaking news. Really appreciate it.

My pleasure. We'll keep an eye on this one, huh? Absolutely. And that's all we have for you right now here on Sidebar, everybody. Thank you so much for joining us. And as always, please subscribe on YouTube, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, wherever you should get your podcast. You can also follow us on NBC's Peacock. We have Sidebar episodes up there too. If you want to follow me, X, Instagram, my News Nation show, Jesse Weber Live, Monday through Friday, 11 p.m. Eastern. I'll see you next time, everybody.