Les Wexner, the former CEO of L Brands, testified before Congress, expressing that he was misled by Jeffrey Epstein, a close financial advisor he labeled a “world-class con man.” Responding to subpoenas linked to newly released documents from the Justice Department, Wexner denied any complicity in Epstein’s illegal activities and described himself as naive for trusting him.
In a statement to the House Oversight Committee, Wexner characterized himself as a philanthropist who has always lived ethically. He emphasized his desire to clarify his history with Epstein, asserting that the relationship soured in 2007 when he discovered Epstein’s misappropriation of funds. Wexner’s association with Epstein has come under scrutiny, particularly since Epstein, who died in prison in 2019, had extensive ties to influential individuals.
Wexner admitted that despite no longer being directly connected, their relationship persisted until Epstein’s infamous arrest. He has never been charged with wrongdoing related to Epstein, though his name appears frequently in various records, leading to speculation about his financial support of Epstein’s activities.
During the testimony, Wexner maintained that he was unaware of Epstein’s criminal behavior and was shocked by the revelations. He reiterated his commitment to ethics, particularly in light of the criticisms he faces related to Epstein’s actions, which have led to calls for his name to be removed from various institutions linked to his philanthropic efforts.
The session also prompted skepticism from some lawmakers, who highlighted Wexner’s significant financial interactions with Epstein, suggesting a deeper involvement in facilitating his activities.
Why this story matters
- It highlights the complexities of high-profile connections and accountability in business.
Key takeaway
- Les Wexner asserts he was misled by Jeffrey Epstein, distancing himself from the late financier’s crimes.
Opposing viewpoint
- Critics argue Wexner’s financial support enabled Epstein’s criminal activities, casting doubt on his claims of ignorance.
