Billionaire Les Wexner deposed by House committee regarding ties to Jeffrey Epstein

2026-02-18

The BareStory

Les Wexner, the 88-year-old billionaire founder of L Brands, appeared for a closed-door deposition before the House Oversight Committee in Ohio on Wednesday. The testimony, compelled by a subpoena issued last month, follows the Department of Justice’s recent release of millions of pages of files related to Jeffrey Epstein.

In a prepared statement provided to the committee, Wexner denied any wrongdoing or knowledge of Epstein’s criminal activities. He described himself as having been "duped by a world-class con man" and asserted that he completely severed ties with the financier nearly two decades ago. Wexner, who hired Epstein in the 1980s to manage his wealth and granted him power of attorney, stated he never witnessed Epstein with a minor and revoked the financial authorization in 2007.

Committee members scrutinized the financial relationship between the two men. Representative Robert Garcia stated that lawmakers are focused on the source of Epstein's money, alleging that Wexner was Epstein's "single largest benefactor." Additionally, Representative Thomas Massie cited a 2019 FBI document that referred to Wexner as a "co-conspirator," while Attorney General Pam Bondi testified that she believes Wexner’s name appears more than 4,000 times in the newly released records.

Wexner has not been charged with a crime. A legal representative for the retail tycoon stated that federal prosecutors previously indicated Wexner was viewed as a source of information rather than a target of investigation. The deposition occurred one week after Ghislaine Maxwell appeared before the same panel but refused to answer questions, invoking her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

Left Perspective

Piercing the Financial Veil
Challenging Elite Impunity
Rejecting Plausible Deniability

Right Perspective

Preserving Due Process
Distinguishing Victimhood from Complicity
Scrutinizing Prosecutorial Scope

Left Perspective

• Piercing the Financial Veil The pursuit of justice extends beyond the immediate perpetrators to the capital that enabled their operations. By focusing on Wexner as Epstein’s "single largest benefactor," this perspective posits that financial stewardship equates to moral culpability. The logic holds that without the immense wealth and power of attorney granted by figures like Wexner, Epstein’s predatory infrastructure would have been impossible to sustain.

• Challenging Elite Impunity This camp views the "co-conspirator" designation in the 2019 FBI document not as a clerical note, but as evidence of a two-tiered justice system where billionaires are insulated from consequences. The argument suggests that appearing more than 4,000 times in investigative files implies a depth of entanglement that contradicts the narrative of a passive victim. Here, the priority is stripping away the "wealth shield" to ensure that high status does not function as legal immunity.

• Rejecting Plausible Deniability Skepticism is directed at the defense of being "duped by a world-class con man," viewing it as a convenient narrative often utilized by the powerful to evade accountability. This framework argues that granting full Power of Attorney creates a fiduciary and ethical bond that cannot be retroactively severed by claiming ignorance. The fear is that accepting this defense allows systemic enablers to wash their hands of the abuse facilitated by their negligence.

Right Perspective

• Preserving Due Process The cornerstone of this logic is the distinction between public scrutiny and legal guilt. Emphasizing that Wexner has "not been charged with a crime" and was designated by prosecutors as a "source of information" rather than a target, this camp argues that the state must adhere to strict evidentiary standards. The priority is protecting the integrity of the legal system against trial-by-public-opinion, regardless of the unpopularity of the subject.

• Distinguishing Victimhood from Complicity This perspective accepts the possibility that a businessman can be swindled without being criminally liable for the con man’s personal depravity. By highlighting Wexner’s assertion that he "severed ties" nearly two decades ago and revoked financial authorization in 2007, the argument frames his actions as those of a deceived client correcting a mistake. Order requires recognizing that bad judgment in hiring a financial manager is distinct from participation in heinous crimes.

• Scrutinizing Prosecutorial Scope Caution is raised regarding the use of raw bureaucratic data—such as the number of times a name appears in files—as a proxy for guilt. While acknowledging Representative Massie’s citation of FBI documents, this framework warns against equating investigative notes with adjudicated facts. The concern is that conflating association with conspiracy erodes civil liberties and allows government committees to overreach into private lives without the burden of proof required in a courtroom.

How it may affect me

As a U.S. reader:

You may see a shift in how financial liability is defined, as lawmakers examine whether granting power of attorney creates accountability for the criminal actions of wealth managers.

The use of raw investigative notes to publicly label uncharged individuals as co-conspirators could set a precedent for how government data challenges the presumption of innocence and privacy rights.

Public trust in the judicial system may be tested depending on whether these proceedings demonstrate that financial enablers face consequences or if the wealthy are insulated from the legal system.

Billionaire Les Wexner deposed by House committee regarding ties to Jeffrey Epstein

The BareStory

Left Perspective

Right Perspective

How it may affect me

Read the story at