Jeffrey Epstein's long-serving accountant gave Congress a series of contradictory answers about whether Epstein's estate paid a financial settlement to a woman who alleged abuse by both Epstein and Donald Trump, and the story kept changing for more than 48 hours after he left the room.
Richard Kahn, who worked as Epstein's accountant for more than a decade and was named a co-executor of his estate two days before Epstein's death in August 2019, testified before the House Oversight Committee in a closed-door deposition on 11 March 2026. His appearance followed months of congressional subpoenas to banks and visits to the Treasury Department as lawmakers sought to map Epstein's finances.
What emerged from the session was not clarity but a sequence of contradictions that left Democratic and Republican committee members trading accusations of misinformation and a woman known only as 'Jane Doe 4' at the centre of an unresolved dispute about whether she was ever compensated by the estate.
What Kahn Testified — And How His Account Shifted
During the deposition, Democrat Representative Ro Khanna asked Kahn directly whether 'Jane Doe 4,' described by Khanna as a woman who had made allegations against President Trump, had received a settlement from the Epstein estate. Kahn confirmed that she had. That answer did not hold.
Later in the same session, when Democratic staff attorneys returned to the question, Kahn's attorney Daniel Ruzumna sought clarification about which specific individual they were referring to. After consulting with his client, Ruzumna stated on the record that Kahn's earlier testimony had been mistaken, and that neither he nor Kahn recognised 'Jane Doe 4' as anyone who had filed a claim against the estate at all.
The explanation, offered publicly by the House Oversight Democrats, was that more than one woman had used the 'Jane Doe 4' pseudonym across different Epstein-related lawsuits, and that Representative Khanna had not identified the woman by her actual name during questioning, leaving Kahn and his counsel to speculate about who was being referenced.
On 12 March 2026, Ruzumna spoke again to Democratic staff attorneys and offered a third account: the woman in question had in fact filed a claim against the estate, but it had been denied, and no settlement had been reached. Hours later, during a second call the same day, he reversed again.
Ruzumna told attorneys he 'could no longer stand by' his assertion that no settlement had been reached, and stated instead that he 'could neither confirm nor deny whether a settlement was reached' with Jane Doe 4, citing confidentiality obligations. That letter, sent to Ruzumna by Democratic Representatives Robert Garcia and Ro Khanna on 13 March 2026, demanded written confirmation of whether the woman had filed a claim and whether she had received money.
In his own written reply, Ruzumna told Garcia and Khanna that Kahn had 'truthfully and completely answered all questions posed to him at his deposition to the best of his recollection,' and that the confusion stemmed from the volume of women who had filed claims against the estate and the imprecision of the pseudonym used during questioning.
What Republicans and Democrats Each Said Kahn Confirmed
Committee chairman James Comer, a Kentucky Republican, was careful to draw a firm line during his own hallway briefing after the deposition. Comer said Kahn testified that he 'had never seen any type of transaction to Trump or anyone in his family.' He later wrote on social media that Kahn had become 'the fifth witness to tell the Committee that President Trump was not involved with Epstein's shady dealings,' framing the Jane Doe 4 dispute as a Democratic mischaracterisation.
Comer did, however, confirm other significant portions of what Kahn told the committee. He told reporters that Kahn named five individuals who transferred significant sums of money to Epstein: billionaire retailer Les Wexner, hedge fund manager Glenn Dubin, investor Steven Sinofsky, the Rothschild banking family, and private equity investor Leon Black.
Comer said the committee had already deposed Wexner and intended to depose Black. Kahn also testified that he understood Epstein's primary business to be tax advisory and financial planning — an explanation that members of both parties found difficult to reconcile with the scale of the payments and the complexity of the corporate infrastructure Kahn helped manage.
Ranking Member Robert Garcia, a California Democrat, took a sharply different view of the day's significance. In his statement after the deposition, Garcia said that 'Epstein's massive sex trafficking ring would not have been possible without the consistent payments and services of his long-time accountant.'
He said Kahn had admitted to facilitating a fake marriage between two women connected to Epstein, impersonating Epstein in communications with banks, and confirmed that Epstein 'spoke about Donald Trump a lot.' Garcia called the claim that Kahn had no knowledge of Epstein's activities 'not credible.'
Darren Indyke's Deposition Adds Another Layer of Ambiguity
A second deposition on 19 March 2026, with Darren Indyke, Epstein's attorney for more than two decades and the other co-executor of his estate, failed to resolve the Jane Doe 4 question. Garcia said midway through that session that Indyke 'would not confirm or deny' whether a settlement had been paid to the accuser. 'The story around Jane Doe 4 has now changed four or five times,' Garcia told reporters. 'Until we get an answer on that question we will not be satisfied.'
Democratic Representative Melanie Stansbury added another dimension: she said she now believed there may be two separate women who had made allegations against Trump, because Indyke would not confirm whether a woman who had filed a lawsuit and a restraining order against Trump, and whose records appeared in Epstein estate files, was the same person as the 'Jane Doe 4' in DOJ documents.
Indyke's attorney Daniel Weiner had previously said in a statement that 'not a single woman has ever accused either Mr Indyke or Mr Kahn of committing sexual abuse or witnessing sexual abuse.' Indyke told the committee he 'had no knowledge whatsoever' of Epstein's crimes. Democratic Representative Dave Min, a lawyer, said after the session: 'I'm very surprised that he did not take the Fifth Amendment. I think it's very likely he perjured himself over and over and over again.' That assertion has not been tested in court.
Indyke and Kahn had separately settled a £26 million ($35 million) class-action lawsuit in February 2026 brought by Epstein victims who alleged the pair were central facilitators of Epstein's operation. That settlement, which still required federal judicial approval at the time of writing, included no admission of wrongdoing. The US Virgin Islands government had previously sued both men, alleging that Kahn received more than £7.7 million ($10 million) from Epstein between 2011 and 2019 for his services.
What Congress cannot yet say with certainty is whether a settlement was paid, who received it, and what it covered — and that ambiguity, eight months into the most extensive congressional examination of Epstein's finances in history, may itself be the most consequential finding of all.
