# Eleven women accuse Leslie Wexner of funding the Epstein network > Eleven women have filed a civil lawsuit against Leslie Wexner, founder of L Brands and Victoria's Secret, in the New York State - Author: Maxime Marquette - Publisher: MadMax (https://mad-max.co) - Section: Analysis - Published: 2026-07-05 - Canonical URL: https://mad-max.co/en/article/onze-femmes-accusent-leslie-wexner-d-avoir-finance-le-reseau-epstein ## Introduction: a lawsuit that traces back to the source of the money ### The Victoria's Secret billionaire in the crosshairs Eleven women have filed a civil lawsuit against **Leslie Wexner**, founder of **L Brands** and **Victoria's Secret**, in the **New York State Supreme Court**. According to the complaint, revealed on **March 31, 2026** and widely picked up in early April, the billionaire allegedly paid roughly **$200 million** to **Jeffrey Epstein** between **1987 and 2007**, a sum the plaintiffs describe as the financial fuel behind the former financier's sex trafficking network, according to reporting by **Bloomberg**. The defendants named in the suit are **Leslie Wexner** himself, the **Nine East 71st Street Corporation**, and the **Wexner Foundation**. The case was built under **New York**'s **Gender-Motivated Violence Act**, an amended law that temporarily reopened, between **March 2026 and March 2027**, a window allowing otherwise time-barred claims to be filed, according to law firm **Sauder Schelkopf**. ### An accusation that shifts the center of gravity of the Epstein case For years, the public narrative around the **Epstein** case focused on the man himself, then on his inner circle. This new lawsuit changes the angle: it targets the **source of the capital** that, according to the plaintiffs, allowed **Epstein** to build his influence, his properties, and his network. That shift is no small matter for anyone who has followed this case from the start. **Wexner**'s name is not new to this story. It reportedly appears more than **a thousand times** in the publicly released **Epstein** documents, a figure that alone justifies the attention this new proceeding deserves, according to data compiled by **Wikipedia**. *I won't pretend this lawsuit settles anything. A civil complaint is not a conviction. But after years of **Wexner**'s name circulating on the periphery of the **Epstein** case without ever being tested in court, seeing **eleven women** name him directly, with specific dates and amounts, changes the texture of the whole affair.* ## The 71st Street property, at the heart of the allegations ### A townhouse bought for twenty million dollars At the center of the case sits a townhouse at **9 East 71st Street** in Manhattan. According to the lawsuit, **Epstein** acquired this property from **Wexner** for **$20 million** in **1998**, a price far below its actual market value at the time. The building then became, between **1998 and 2011**, one of the locations most closely associated with the abuses attributed to **Epstein**. Federal prosecutors had already identified this address as a central site in earlier investigations into **Epstein**. The new civil suit picks up this element and links it directly to **Wexner**'s liability, arguing that transferring the property on such favorable terms constituted, in itself, a form of material support for the network. ### The Boeing 727, a contested symbol The complaint also cites **Epstein**'s private plane, a **Boeing 727** that became infamous in media coverage of the case. According to the plaintiffs, this aircraft was used to transport victims, and its financing traces back to **Wexner** and his companies. **Wexner**'s defense team flatly disputes this reading of events. According to their account, **Epstein** purchased the plane directly from **L Brands** in a separate commercial transaction, which would break the chain of complicity the lawsuit tries to establish. This factual contradiction will likely be one of the sharpest points of friction should the case move toward trial. *Two objects, a house and a plane, have become the material symbols of an entire system of abuse. It's no accident that the plaintiffs' lawyers put them at the center of their argument: unlike abstract bank transfers, a house and a plane can be seen, photographed, and told as a story.* ## Two hundred million dollars over twenty years ### The number that anchors the entire accusation The amount of **$200 million**, spread over roughly two decades, is the centerpiece of the accusation. According to the plaintiffs, this sum was not mere compensation for wealth management services, but structural financing that allowed **Epstein** to maintain his lifestyle, his multiple properties, and ultimately his access to victims. **Wexner** and his team reject this interpretation just as firmly. Their position, repeated for years, is that **Epstein** was legitimately compensated for financial advisory and wealth management services, work for which such sums would not be unusual in the world of ultra-wealthy asset management. ### An account that has already shifted over time It's worth noting that **Wexner**'s own account has changed over the years. Testifying before the **House Oversight Committee** in **February 2026**, he said he had been **"duped"** by **Epstein**, whom he called a **"master manipulator"** and a **"world-class con artist."** He claims **Epstein** embezzled between **$100 and $200 million** from him, which he says led him to cut all ties with Epstein between **2007 and 2008**, according to a detailed account published by **Forbes**. *There's something strange about this double narrative: on one side, **Wexner** presenting himself as a financial victim of **Epstein**, defrauded of tens of millions; on the other, **eleven women** claiming that this very money enabled their own exploitation. Both versions cannot be fully true in the same way, and a court will one day have to resolve this paradox.* ## Leslie Wexner's firm defense ### A categorical denial, but nuanced on the victims Through his spokesperson, **Leslie Wexner** has called the new allegations **"baseless."** His team insists that any sums paid to **Epstein** corresponded to legitimate compensation for professional services rendered in managing his personal fortune, estimated at roughly **$9 billion**, making him the richest man in **Ohio**. Notably, **Wexner**'s defense carefully separates its rejection of the financial accusations from any denial of the victims' suffering. His representatives have expressed **"immense sympathy for the victims of Jeffrey Epstein's horrible crimes,"** while maintaining that **Wexner** himself never knew of nor participated in any way in the abuses committed. ### No criminal charges to date It's essential to state this precisely: at this stage, **no criminal charges** have been filed against **Leslie Wexner**. The current proceeding is a **civil** lawsuit, brought by private individuals, not a criminal case brought by a prosecutor. As of the most recent available information, the defendants had not yet filed a formal response to the allegations in court. This legal distinction matters. A civil suit can result in a financial settlement, a dismissal, or a trial with a verdict based on the **preponderance of the evidence**, a much lower burden of proof than in criminal cases. It does not, in itself, imply an admission of criminal guilt. *I think we need to resist the temptation to turn a civil lawsuit into an instant verdict of guilt. That's neither leniency toward **Wexner** nor a lack of solidarity with the plaintiffs. It's simply respecting how the justice system works, which still has its job to do.* ## The FBI's murky role in the Wexner case ### An internal document resurfaces In **February 2026**, Democratic representative **Ro Khanna** revealed the existence of an internal **FBI** document that, at one point, reportedly classified **Leslie Wexner** as a potential **"co-conspirator"** in the **Epstein** investigation. This revelation immediately reignited questions about the true extent of **Wexner**'s involvement, far beyond his role as a simple wealthy client. This document alone does not prove guilt. But it illustrates a reality that transparency advocates have decried for years: entire portions of the federal investigation into **Epstein** have remained, and still remain today, largely inaccessible to the public. ### A forced appearance before Congress **Wexner** was **subpoenaed** by the House Oversight Committee and questioned under oath in **Ohio** on **February 18, 2026**. This hearing, secured after months of political pressure, produced explanations from him about the nature of his relationship with **Epstein**, the sums paid, and the circumstances of their falling-out. The fact that a billionaire of this stature had to be compelled, by subpoena, to explain himself before elected officials says a great deal about the historical reluctance that has surrounded this case for nearly two decades. This is not spontaneous cooperation; it's transparency extracted by force. *This is exactly the kind of case that demands total transparency, imposed by legal compulsion if necessary. An FBI document labeling someone a potential **co-conspirator** should never sit in a drawer for years. The victims deserve better than a system that drags its feet.* ## The Wexner Foundation connection, a foundation under scrutiny ### Epstein, a trustee for more than a decade The **Wexner Foundation**, the philanthropic organization founded by **Leslie Wexner**, counted **Jeffrey Epstein** among its trustees from the early **1990s** until the mid-**2000s**. This role wasn't symbolic: it placed **Epstein** right at the heart of the wealth management and philanthropic structure of one of the largest fortunes in the United States. It's precisely this institutional closeness, sustained for more than ten years, that fuels the plaintiffs' suspicions today. In their view, this level of integration into **Wexner**'s personal and foundation affairs makes the argument of a strictly professional, distant relationship hard to believe. ### A foundation now named as a defendant The fact that the **Wexner Foundation** itself is named as a defendant in the lawsuit, alongside **Wexner** and the real estate entity **Nine East 71st Street Corporation**, considerably widens the legal scope of the case. This is no longer just about the personal liability of one individual, but potentially that of an entire organizational structure. This legal strategy is no accident: it likely aims to maximize the financial resources available should the plaintiffs prevail, while also setting a precedent on the liability of philanthropic structures tied to individuals accused of serious crimes. *A charitable foundation becoming a co-defendant in a sex trafficking case is not an administrative footnote. It's a signal that American civil justice is trying, here, to trace the entire institutional chain rather than just target a lone individual.* ## The Ohio State case, another legal front for Wexner ### The Richard Strauss file resurfaces Alongside the **Epstein**-related lawsuit, **Leslie Wexner** faces **another proceeding**, distinct but equally significant: one tied to sexual abuse committed by **Dr. Richard Strauss** at **Ohio State University**. **Wexner** sat on that university's board of trustees during the years Strauss was practicing, and he has been ordered to testify in that separate lawsuit. This is obviously not the same case, nor the same victims, nor the same facts. But the timing overlap of two major legal proceedings targeting the same person, both involving institutional sexual abuse, feeds a public perception already weakened by years of partial revelations. ### A philanthropic reputation under severe strain For decades, **Leslie Wexner** cultivated an image as a major donor and institution-builder, notably through his massive gifts to **Ohio State University** and various Jewish and community causes. That carefully built reputation now collides with two simultaneous legal fronts that, each in its own way, question his vigilance and accountability regarding alleged predators in his close circle. Whatever the judicial outcome for **Wexner**, the accumulation of these cases has already, in effect, durably transformed public perception of the man and his philanthropic legacy. *A man can be both a great donor and someone who turned a blind eye, whether willingly or not, to criminal behavior in his circle. That's not a contradiction, it's human, and it's precisely why justice must be decided case by case, without being distracted by reputation.* ## The broader context of the Epstein case in 2026 ### A pivotal year for transparency The year **2026** will likely be remembered as the one in which the **Epstein** case saw its most significant legal and political developments since the financier's death in **2019**. Between congressional hearings, revelations about old **FBI** documents, and now this lawsuit directly targeting a multi-billion-dollar fortune, the year has seen a growing, often laborious, effort to shed full light on this network. This accumulation of proceedings also reflects a shift in the American political and legal climate, now more willing than before to reopen old cases thanks to laws like the **Gender-Motivated Violence Act**, specifically designed to lift the statute of limitations in cases of gender-based violence. ### Pressure that is also coming from Congress The role of representative **Ro Khanna** and other lawmakers in disclosing internal documents shows that pressure for transparency isn't coming solely from civil courts, but directly from the legislative branch as well. This convergence between civil litigation and parliamentary oversight creates a cumulative effect that makes it much harder for anyone named in this case to indefinitely dodge rigorous public scrutiny. It's this combination of legal and political pressure that explains why figures like **Wexner**, protected for years by their social standing and wealth, now find themselves forced to answer publicly, under oath or before a civil court. *You cannot separate this case from the political climate surrounding it. It's no coincidence that tongues loosen precisely when the political balance of power shifts. Transparency, unfortunately, rarely arrives out of spontaneous virtue; it arrives when it becomes politically unavoidable.* ## What the civil trial can actually achieve ### The structural limits of a civil action Let's be honest about what a civil lawsuit can and cannot achieve. Even a complete victory for the plaintiffs would result in a financial judgment, potentially including punitive damages, but never prison time for **Leslie Wexner** based on this proceeding alone. Only a criminal prosecution, brought by a district attorney, could lead to criminal penalties. That doesn't make the plaintiffs' effort pointless. A civil action allows access, through **legal discovery**, to documents, emails, and sworn testimony that criminal investigations haven't always managed to extract. It's often through this route that buried truths eventually surface. ### The precedent of lawsuits against other Epstein associates This lawsuit against **Wexner** follows a line already established by other civil actions targeting figures associated with **Epstein** over the years. Each of these proceedings, regardless of its individual outcome, helps map out more precisely the financial and social network that allowed **Epstein** to operate for so long without being troubled. The fact that these lawsuits keep emerging, more than seven years after **Epstein**'s death, shows that the work of fully reconstructing this network is far from finished, and that new names could still emerge in the months ahead. *I prefer a truth that arrives slowly, in small pieces of **legal discovery**, over a spectacular accusation that collapses for lack of evidence. Civil justice, with all its limits, sometimes remains the only tool capable of forcing open the cases nobody wanted opened.* ## The voices of the plaintiffs, too often pushed into the background ### Eleven women, eleven distinct paths Behind the figures and the dollar amounts, there are **eleven women** who chose to bring this case before a court, publicly exposing extremely painful parts of their past. That choice, within a justice system that often exposes victims to aggressive cross-examination, is never trivial. The legal framework of the **Gender-Motivated Violence Act**, which temporarily reopened expired statutes of limitations, was specifically designed to give this type of victim a chance to be heard years, sometimes decades, after the alleged facts. Without this legal window, this lawsuit against **Wexner** likely could never have been filed. ### The symbolic weight of naming the financiers Directly naming an alleged financier of the network, rather than only direct accomplices or intermediaries, sends a clear message: responsibility does not stop with whoever commits the act, but can extend to those who, knowingly or through gross negligence, materially allowed the system to persist. It's this logic of expanded accountability that makes this lawsuit potentially more significant, symbolically, than many earlier proceedings tied to the **Epstein** case. *We often talk about the amounts, the planes, the houses. We too quickly forget that at the end of every legal document, there are women who had to relive, in detail, what they suffered, simply to hope for a shred of judicial recognition.* ## The lingering gray areas in the case ### What the lawsuit does not yet prove In the interest of factual rigor, it's crucial to remember that this lawsuit remains, at this stage, a set of **allegations**. No court has yet ruled on the merits. The amounts claimed, the precise circumstances of the funding, and the exact extent of **Wexner**'s knowledge of **Epstein**'s criminal activities remain to be established in court. **Wexner**'s account, according to which he was himself a victim of massive embezzlement by **Epstein**, has also not been independently validated by any court. The two deeply contradictory narratives will need to be tested against concrete documentary evidence during discovery. ### The persistent lack of full transparency Despite the congressional hearings and the multiple ongoing legal proceedings, full transparency about **Epstein**'s entire financial network remains, in **2026**, still out of reach. Documents remain classified, witnesses refuse to cooperate fully, and certain angles of the case, notably financial flows prior to **1998**, remain largely obscure. This lack of full transparency is, in itself, a systemic failure that no single lawsuit, however important, can correct on its own. *I will never claim to hold the whole truth about this case, and no one should. What I do know is that every new civil lawsuit sheds a little more light on a system that operated in the shadows for decades, and that the absence of a final, exhaustive report remains, in itself, a separate scandal.* ## The possible consequences for Wexner and his legacy ### An already measurable reputational impact Regardless of the judicial outcome, the reputational impact on **Leslie Wexner** is already considerable. The man who built the **L Brands** empire and turned **Victoria's Secret** into a global brand now sees his name systematically associated, in international media coverage, with the **Epstein** scandal rather than his entrepreneurial achievements. This association, whether or not it is ultimately confirmed by a court verdict, is already having concrete repercussions on the institutions he has financially supported, several of which have in recent years had to publicly distance themselves from his name or reassess certain partnerships. ### The legal timeline to watch What happens next in this case will largely depend on the procedural calendar of the New York courts. The defendants will have to formally respond to the allegations, a phase of **legal discovery** will likely open, and hearing dates will be set in the coming months. No precise timetable had been publicly announced at the time this analysis was written. It will fall to those following this case, journalists and citizens alike, to keep tracking every stage with the same rigor, without giving in to either sensationalism or indifference. *This case perfectly illustrates why you have to follow justice over the long haul, not just at the moment the complaint is filed, when the spotlight is brightest. It's in the months that follow, far from the headlines, that the real legal battle is often fought.* ## Why this case goes beyond Wexner alone ### A test for the accountability of great fortunes Beyond **Leslie Wexner**'s individual fate, this lawsuit constitutes a genuine test of the American justice system's ability to hold extremely wealthy individuals accountable, people whose social and political influence has long acted as a shield against thorough judicial scrutiny. If this lawsuit leads, even partially, to significant documentary revelations or an acknowledgment of liability, it could set an important precedent for other similar cases, where wealthy financiers or patrons may have, knowingly or not, allowed criminal networks to persist. ### A demand for truth that must never fade Seven years after **Epstein**'s death, the demand for the full truth about his network remains as strong as ever. Every new lawsuit, every declassified document, every congressional hearing is one more piece of a puzzle that remains largely incomplete. The public, and above all the victims, deserve for this quest for truth never to lose momentum, regardless of the political or financial weight of those named. It's this demand, more than any individual verdict, that must remain the compass for any serious coverage of this case. *I'll say it again because it deserves repeating: following this case closely isn't morbid fascination, it's a basic duty toward victims who have waited far too long for even a shred of justice and public recognition.* ## The precedent for other victims not yet heard ### A reproducible legal model The legal strategy used in this lawsuit, based on the **Gender-Motivated Violence Act** and a precise identification of alleged financial flows, could serve as a model for other victims of the **Epstein** network who have not yet filed a complaint. The legal window open until **March 2027** still leaves room for new, similar proceedings. Lawyers specializing in this type of case are already closely watching how the lawsuit against **Wexner** unfolds, aware that its outcome, whether favorable to the plaintiffs or not, will directly influence the strategy of other potential victims considering a comparable legal action against other figures associated with **Epstein**. ### The urgency to act before the legal window closes The legal countdown imposed by the temporary statute-of-limitations window creates additional pressure on any still-hesitant victim. After **March 2027**, this exceptional legal remedy may no longer be available, which partly explains why several **Epstein**-related lawsuits are multiplying precisely during this period. This legal urgency, however painful for victims who must relive their trauma within imposed deadlines, also reflects a clear legislative intent to give civil justice one real last chance before these cases close for good. *This legal window closing in 2027 should, on its own, push every institution involved to speed up the disclosure of documents still hidden. Legal timelines should never dictate the pace of truth, but in practice, they too often do.* ## Conclusion: between serious allegations and necessary judicial caution ### A case to follow without complacency or haste The lawsuit brought against **Leslie Wexner** by **eleven women** represents one of the most significant developments in the **Epstein** case in years. It traces directly back to the alleged source of funding for a network that destroyed lives for decades, while resting on allegations that, as of today, remain to be proven in court. The responsibility of anyone following this case, journalist or citizen, is to resist two opposing temptations: condemning without trial, and minimizing accusations this serious in the name of excessive caution. The truth, here as elsewhere, will be built through facts, documents, and the hard work of the justice system. ### What this case demands of all of us It demands patience, rigor, and above all, constant vigilance against any attempt to prematurely close a chapter that, in many ways, remains largely open. Eleven women chose to speak before a court. The least we can do is keep listening, and keep demanding answers. *I'll end this analysis with a simple conviction: the truth about this case will not emerge from a single trial or a single hearing. It will be built, piece by piece, for as long as victims keep finding the courage to speak and journalists keep demanding answers from those who would rather stay silent.* **By Maxime Marquette, columnist** ## Columnist's transparency note ### Editorial stance I am not a journalist but a **columnist and analyst**. My expertise lies in observing and analysing the geopolitical, economic and strategic dynamics that shape our world. My work is to take political strategies apart, to understand global economic movements, to put the decisions of international actors in context and to offer analytical perspectives on the changes that are redefining our societies. I do not claim the cold objectivity of traditional journalism, which stops at reporting facts. **I claim analytical clarity**, rigorous interpretation and a deep understanding of the complex issues that concern us all. My role is to give meaning to the facts, to place them in their historical and strategic context, and to offer a critical reading of events. ### Method and sources This text keeps the basic distinction between **verified facts and interpretive analysis**. The rule never changes: a factual claim is published only when a verifiable source supports it, and the sources this article actually used are listed under **Sources**, never here. **Primary source families** used by the publication, when the story has them: official statements from governments and international institutions, public statements by political leaders, reports from intergovernmental organisations, dispatches from recognised international news agencies. **Secondary source families**: specialised publications, internationally recognised news media, analyses from established research institutions, reports from industry organisations. When an article cites statistical, economic or geopolitical data, it comes from the institutions that produce it (intergovernmental organisations, central banks, national statistics offices), and the exact institution is named under **Sources**. ### Nature of the analysis The analyses, interpretations and perspectives in the analytical sections of this article are a **critical, contextual synthesis** based on the information available, the trends observed and the expert comments cited in the sources consulted. My role is to interpret these facts, to set them in the context of today's geopolitical and economic dynamics, and to give them a coherent meaning within the larger story of the changes shaping our time. These analyses reflect expertise built through continuous observation of international affairs and an understanding of the strategic mechanisms that drive global actors. This article describes a documented state of affairs on its publication date, not a prediction: later developments may shift its outlook. No update is promised in advance; when an article is corrected or completed, the change is dated in the text. ## Sources ### Primary sources - Bloomberg — Epstein Accusers Sue Wexner Claiming His Funding Enabled Crimes, March 31, 2026 - Sauder Schelkopf — Leslie Wexner Named in New Lawsuit Alleging Support of Jeffrey Epstein's Sex Trafficking Operation, April 1, 2026 - Forbes — Everything We Know About Les Wexner In The Epstein Files, February 16, 2026 ### Secondary sources - Wikipedia — Relationship of Les Wexner and Jeffrey Epstein - The Lantern — Survivors of Epstein Are Suing Les Wexner, April 2026 - Axios Columbus — Les Wexner's Jeffrey Epstein Ties, February 18, 2026 --- Source: Maxime Marquette, MadMax. When citing, name the author and link https://mad-max.co/en/article/onze-femmes-accusent-leslie-wexner-d-avoir-finance-le-reseau-epstein