New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez filed a lawsuit Wednesday against two of Jeffrey Epstein's closest confidants, seeking to stop them from receiving payments as executors of his estate.
The suit names longtime Epstein attorney Darren Indyke and accountant Richard Kahn. It claims they facilitated and concealed sex trafficking tied to Epstein's Zorro Ranch outside Santa Fe, and it aims to keep estate money from flowing to them while survivors still carry the damage.
CBS News reported that Torrez cast the filing as unfinished business after Epstein's death, not a closed chapter. The attorney general reopened the New Mexico investigation this year. Epstein had been under investigation in the state when he died in 2019.
In a statement announcing the action, Torrez framed the case around alleged enablers and money structures, not a lone actor.
"Jeffrey Epstein did not operate alone, and his death does not end the pursuit of accountability for the people who helped make his crimes possible."
He added that the lawsuit describes a network of people and financial arrangements that helped sustain and conceal abuse of vulnerable girls and young women, including in New Mexico. Torrez also said those who allegedly enabled the exploitation should not profit from it while survivors live with the consequences.
Just The News reported that the estate is estimated at more than $100 million, and that Torrez wants the court to block Indyke and Kahn from taking executor payments so resources can aid survivors instead. Unless a court steps in, Torrez said, the two men "stand to benefit substantially" from the estate.
Epstein bought Zorro Ranch in 1993 and built a mansion, airstrip, and helipad on the property. The lawsuit claims Indyke and Kahn were central to an informal network of associates bound together by one purpose: knowingly facilitating and concealing Epstein's decades-long criminal conduct to preserve and grow his fortunes and influence. Indyke worked closely with Epstein for decades. Kahn worked with him for more than 10 years.
That financial architecture claim sits alongside other Epstein-related civil fights still moving through the courts, including banking claims that a federal judge recently allowed to proceed against FirstBank.
AP News reported that the New Mexico complaint also accuses the pair of conspiracy and racketeering through arrangements that allegedly included silence payments and covering abuse-related expenses. Financial records cited in that coverage show more than $3 million in payments from Epstein-related accounts to girls or women from 2003 to 2013 with no business purpose, plus later payments for rent, tuition, legal fees, and medical expenses.
Torrez put the broader theory in plain terms in remarks carried in that reporting: none of this could be done by just one man. He said the operation was facilitated and made possible by handlers, lawyers, accountants, and others who have yet to face real consequences.
Lawyers for Indyke and Kahn rejected the allegations in strong terms. They said their clients emphatically reject claims that they were complicit in or in any way knowingly facilitated Epstein's sexual abuse or trafficking, conduct they said by all accounts occurred behind closed doors, in secluded locations, and at times when neither man was present.
The defense also attacked process. Lawyers said neither Torrez nor anyone from his office asked to speak with Indyke or Kahn for relevant information before filing what they called a baseless lawsuit, raising serious questions about the thoroughness of the investigation and the motivations for the suit.
Dan Weiner, an attorney for Indyke and Kahn, pressed a separate point in coverage of the filing: not a single woman has ever accused Indyke or Kahn of committing sexual abuse or witnessing sexual abuse, nor claimed that she or anyone else reported any allegation of Epstein's abuse to them.
In March testimony before Congress, Indyke and Kahn said they were unaware of Epstein's crimes beyond his 2008 guilty plea on prostitution charges. That sworn denial now sits against a state civil theory that money management and corporate structure were part of the concealment. Congressional pressure around Epstein records has stayed intense in other lanes as well, including the House vote to hold billionaire Leon Black in contempt over defiance of Epstein subpoenas.
The pair also recently settled a separate lawsuit in which they were accused of facilitating sham marriages. Public details on the terms of that settlement remain limited in the available accounts of Wednesday's filing.
Six survivors of Epstein's abuse, Marina Lacerda, Anouska De Georgiou, Julia Molchanova, Courtney Wild, Jena Lisa Jones, and Chauntae Davies, lauded the New Mexico lawsuit in a statement Wednesday.
"Those who argue that [Epstein] could not have acted alone are right. His operation depended on the appearance of legitimacy and access to money carefully structured to avoid exposing his crimes."
They said the lawsuit is aimed at the two men most responsible for that appearance and structure. Survivors also pointed to management of dozens of interconnected companies as part of the legitimacy screen they say kept the operation insulated.
The New York Post reported Torrez's core money point in blunt form: those resources rightfully belong in the hands of survivors. That coverage also noted the ranch property in the Stanley area and the fact that Epstein faced no New Mexico charges before his 2019 death.
Epstein died in a federal jail in 2019 while held on charges of sex trafficking minors. The medical examiner determined the death was suicide. Ghislaine Maxwell's separate trafficking conviction has itself been the subject of later court fights, including a federal judge's dismissal of Maxwell's bid to overturn the conviction as frivolous.
The filing is a civil lawsuit, not a criminal indictment. Authorities have not publicly confirmed any new criminal charges against Indyke or Kahn arising from this action. Case number, full caption, and the precise dollar amounts of disputed executor payments have not been released in the public summaries of the complaint.
Investigators and the court will need to test the lawsuit's core claims: whether Indyke and Kahn knowingly facilitated or concealed trafficking conduct tied to the ranch; whether estate executor payments should be blocked; and whether the financial arrangements and company structures described in the complaint amount to the conspiracy and racketeering theory the state advances.
Other Epstein-related legal skirmishes continue in parallel tracks, from estate and banking disputes to residual investigative fights such as the High Court fight over Mountbatten-Windsor challenges to Epstein probe search warrants. Wednesday's New Mexico case keeps the focus on alleged professional enablers and who may still draw money from the estate.
Torrez's office presents the suit as a direct attempt to stop alleged facilitators from cashing out. The defense presents it as a thin case filed without even an interview. The court will have to sort claim from denial on a record that still leaves key payment figures and docket details outside public view.
When lawyers and accountants sit at the center of a trafficking fortune, the public test is simple: does the system claw back the money and expose the structure, or do the gatekeepers walk away paid?
