House testimony from Jeffrey Epstein’s longtime accountant and personal lawyer raises sharp questions about why federal prosecutors never questioned two men who controlled his money and estate.

Two of the closest people to Jeffrey Epstein told the House Oversight Committee they were never interviewed by federal authorities about his sex trafficking. Richard Kahn, Epstein’s former accountant, and Darren Indyke, his personal lawyer and co-executor of the estate, said under oath that the DOJ and FBI never sat them down. That gap alone looks like a failure of basic investigative work.

Both men acknowledged narrow contact from prosecutors, but only for paperwork related to the estate and trusts. Kahn described receiving a grand jury subpoena from the Southern District of New York and a separate document request from the U.S. Virgin Islands Department of Justice. According to his testimony, those requests wanted records, not answers about crimes.

“I’ve never been questioned by any government authority.”

Kahn told investigators he believed Epstein when the financier said his 2006 arrest was a mistake and that he did not know a woman was underage. Kahn said, “Epstein told me his 2006 arrest was a mistake, that he did not know the woman was underage, and that nothing like that would happen again.” He says he believed Epstein and never saw an obvious minor in his presence.

Indyke offered a similar account and emphasized his role as a transactional lawyer rather than a criminal investigator. He answered the committee plainly when asked if the DOJ had questioned him: “Personally, no.” He added that given his transactional role, he was not surprised prosecutors did not seek him out.

“He was adamant that he had no idea that anyone involved was underage and personally assured me that he would never again let himself be in that position. I believed him, and I made the mistake of believing that Mr. Epstein would not again commit a crime.”

Both men negotiated settlement business related to Epstein’s survivors and handled major estate matters, including a proposed settlement up to $35 million. They were not peripheral figures; they were central to how Epstein’s finances and legal structures operated. That position makes the absence of federal interviews striking and difficult to justify.

Kahn said he stayed on because of a financial crisis and family responsibilities, noting, “We were in the middle of a financial crisis, and I had a family to support, so I made the wrong decision in staying.” Indyke likewise insisted he never witnessed abuse and that no woman ever accused him or Kahn of witnessing or participating in sexual abuse.

“Not a single woman has ever accused either me or Richard Kahn of witnessing or participating in sexual abuse,”

Indyke also gave a prepared statement in which he said he did not know what Epstein did after hours and in places where he was not present. He stated, “The truth is that I did not know what Mr. Epstein did after hours, behind closed doors, and in places where I was not present.” Taken at face value, those comments still leave major investigative questions unanswered.

Some lawmakers were skeptical. Rep. David Min said he believed Indyke’s denials under oath could amount to perjury, bluntly telling the committee, “I think he, again, is perjuring himself.” That accusation underlines how tense the hearings became and how little trust there is in the explanations offered.

The bigger issue is institutional. Epstein died in federal custody in 2019 while facing sex trafficking charges, and Ghislaine Maxwell was convicted in 2022. Between those milestones, federal investigators had ample reason to question everyone involved in Epstein’s money and legal affairs. According to Kahn and Indyke, that did not happen.

The House Oversight Committee has moved to fill that vacuum, taking testimony from multiple figures tied to Epstein’s orbit, including Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Les Wexner, and Ghislaine Maxwell. The committee is examining newly released files and evidence that the Department of Justice disclosed after the Epstein Files Transparency Act was signed into law.

The Department of Justice released a large batch of documents on December 19, and investigators say those materials include records tied to both Kahn and Indyke. The files also reportedly contain troubling details about Epstein’s death in custody, with questions about a guard’s conduct and other inconsistencies that deserve close scrutiny.

Previously disclosed documents have shown correspondence between Epstein and prominent figures, raising questions about who knew what and when. The committee has subpoenaed other officials as part of its probe, signaling that lawmakers want answers the DOJ either did not seek or did not disclose.

The pattern is what Republican critics find most damning: when the obvious witnesses sit at the center of an investigation and are never interviewed, the failure looks deliberate or at least negligent. From the lenient 2008 plea deal to how Epstein was handled in custody, the handling of this case has left many Americans unsettled.

Congressional investigators now have documents and testimony the prosecutors either did not request or did not obtain. The oversight effort is intended to push beyond the filing of records and into direct questioning and accountability. What remains to be seen is whether that work will produce the kind of answers the public deserves.