New Mexico's attorney general filed a civil lawsuit against Jeffrey Epstein's longtime attorney and accountant, alleging they knowingly facilitated his sex trafficking operation for decades. The suit names attorney Darren Indyke and accountant Richard Kahn as defendants, claiming they helped structure shell companies, move money, and conceal assets that enabled Epstein's crimes.
The lawsuit, filed in New Mexico state court, asserts that Indyke and Kahn provided legal and financial services that directly supported Epstein's trafficking network. Prosecutors allege the pair maintained accounts, transferred funds through multiple entities, and created corporate structures specifically designed to obscure the flow of money connected to criminal activity. The complaint contends both men had knowledge of Epstein's conduct yet continued working with him for personal financial gain.
This marks an expansion of legal accountability beyond Epstein himself, who died in jail in 2019 while awaiting trial on federal sex trafficking charges. The New Mexico action targets the professional enablers who allegedly used their expertise to launder money and protect assets. Indyke has served as Epstein's personal attorney for years and handled his estate after death. Kahn managed Epstein's finances through various corporate vehicles.
The lawsuit seeks damages and aims to hold these professionals liable for aiding and abetting trafficking. State prosecutors claim Indyke and Kahn's conduct violated New Mexico's Trafficking Victims Protection Act and constituted conspiracy. The case reflects growing legal strategy to pursue those in Epstein's circle who profited from facilitating his crimes, particularly focusing on the infrastructure professionals who enabled asset concealment and financial obfuscation.
This action comes amid broader efforts across multiple jurisdictions to hold Epstein-adjacent figures accountable. Prior cases have targeted his associates, handlers, and enablers. The New Mexico filing signals willingness to pursue civil liability against professionals whose services sustained the trafficking operation's financial mechanics.
Indyke and Kahn have not publicly responded to the allegations. Their defense will likely argue they provided standard legal and accounting services without knowledge of trafficking activities, a common defense when professionals face liability claims for client conduct.
The lawsuit's success depends on proving the defendants knowingly participated in facilitating trafficking rather than simply providing ordinary professional services. Prosecutors must establish that Indyke and Kahn had actual knowledge of criminal activity and intentionally structured their work to enable it. Discovery and evidence presentation will determine whether prosecutors can connect specific financial actions directly to trafficking operations.
The case underscores ongoing accountability efforts targeting Epstein's enablers and signals state-level willingness to pursue civil remedies when federal prosecutions conclude. It expands legal liability beyond typical attorney-client and accountant-client confidentiality protections when criminal facilitation allegations surface.