New Mexico targets Epstein estate payments in civil suit against lawyer and accountant

New Mexico is asking a federal judge to prevent Jeffrey Epstein's estate from distributing assets while the state pursues civil claims against the two men who manage it. The October 21 lawsuit turns attention from Epstein's own crimes to allegations about the legal, financial and corporate arrangements that the state says enabled his trafficking operation.

Attorney General Raúl Torrez filed the 49-page complaint in U.S. District Court in New Mexico. It names Darren K. Indyke, Epstein's longtime personal lawyer, and Richard D. Kahn, his longtime accountant, as defendants both individually and as estate executors and trust administrators. They reject the accusations. The suit is a civil enforcement action, not a new criminal indictment or a finding that either man is liable.

The money at the center of the case

The complaint says Indyke and Kahn are eligible for bequests of $50 million and $25 million, respectively, if funds are available. It cites a public estate accounting for the period ending June 30, 2026, valuing the estate at more than $107 million. Those figures describe potential distributions and a dated accounting; they do not establish that the men have received the bequests or that every dollar is available for a new judgment.

The distinction matters because the men have overlapping roles. The complaint identifies them as managers of the estate and trustees of the 1953 Trust, as well as beneficiaries. The trust receives assets under Epstein's estate arrangements. New Mexico wants the court to preserve assets while its claims are heard, rather than permit distributions that might complicate a later recovery.

The state's requested restriction is broader than simply announcing that the two men should not receive their named bequests. The prayer for relief asks for an order preventing estate distributions during the litigation to maintain the status quo. Whether the court will grant that request, and on what terms, remains a separate question. The filing itself does not freeze an account.

What the state alleges

New Mexico alleges that Indyke and Kahn did more than provide ordinary professional services. The complaint describes positions in Epstein-related companies, authority over financial accounts and transactions that the state says supported an informal trafficking enterprise. It connects those arrangements to alleged abuse at Zorro Ranch, near Stanley in Santa Fe County.

Among the specific allegations, the complaint says Indyke handled a December 2011 transfer of title to Zorro Ranch to Cypress, Inc., a company Epstein controlled. It identifies Kahn as the company's treasurer and director and describes his role in financial and personnel decisions for Epstein's properties. Corporate titles and transactions are part of the state's proposed evidence; their existence alone would not establish knowing participation in trafficking.

The complaint also alleges substantial personal compensation: more than $16 million to Indyke and more than $10 million to Kahn from Epstein and related entities between 2011 and 2019. Those alleged payments during Epstein's lifetime are separate from the potential estate bequests. Adding the figures together without explaining the different periods and legal issues would obscure the case.

The state's theory is that financial management, cash access and corporate structures helped the operation function and concealed its purpose. The defendants' knowledge and intent are therefore central disputed issues. Reporting that someone managed an account is not the same as proving what that person knew about every transaction or activity associated with it.

The defendants' response

Attorney Dan Weiner, responding for the two men, told ABC News that they reject allegations that they knowingly facilitated sexual abuse or trafficking. He said the conduct occurred in secluded places when neither man was present, and that no woman had accused either of committing or witnessing sexual abuse or being told about it.

Weiner also criticized the investigation, saying the attorney general's office had not asked to speak with Indyke or Kahn before filing. The men previously testified before the House Oversight Committee that they did not know about Epstein's abuse. Their denials must be considered alongside the state's allegations; neither side's press statement substitutes for evidence tested in court.

The lawsuit does not need to allege that the men personally committed every underlying assault to advance its facilitation theory. Conversely, an allegation that they enabled an enterprise cannot simply be treated as proof. The legal dispute will turn on the requirements of the statutes, the admissible evidence and the conduct attributable to each defendant.

Five civil counts, several requested remedies

The complaint brings a federal trafficking claim, state racketeering claims based on alleged kidnapping and criminal solicitation, a racketeering-conspiracy claim and an equitable claim involving restitution and unjust enrichment. It seeks a jury trial on issues eligible for one.

Its requested remedies include compensatory and punitive damages, restitution, disgorgement of alleged benefits, restrictions on interests associated with the alleged enterprise and costs. The state also requests three times the damages available under its racketeering statute. These are demands submitted to a court, not an award that survivors can already collect.

The trust's role needs particular care. The complaint expressly says it is named because it holds estate assets through which relief might be satisfied, rather than because the trust itself allegedly engaged in trafficking or racketeering. Treating every named defendant as accused of identical conduct would misstate the pleading.

Why Zorro Ranch remains important

The new case places New Mexico conduct within the wider Epstein history. According to the complaint, the remote ranch was one location used to isolate and exploit girls and young women. This account does not require publishing graphic descriptions or identifying people who have not publicly chosen to discuss abuse.

The property was sold in 2023. A photograph of the ranch today would not necessarily show the conditions described in historical allegations, and the current owner should not be portrayed as a participant in Epstein's conduct. The relevant question in this lawsuit is the defendants' alleged earlier activity and the assets against which relief might be available.

New Mexico has also pursued a separate criminal investigation and a separate dispute with the federal Justice Department over access to investigative records. The August records lawsuit alleges that federal withholding has obstructed the state inquiry; federal officials have cited court orders protecting victim-identifying information. That disagreement is background to the investigative effort, not the same proceeding as the October 21 damages case.

What happens next

The defendants will have an opportunity to respond through the court process, including challenges to the claims and to the requested relief. Any decision restricting distributions, allowing claims to proceed or resolving liability must be reported from an actual order. This report does not assume that a judge has granted the attorney general's requests.

For survivors, the case raises the possibility of additional accountability and recovery from people the state alleges helped sustain the operation. It does not yet establish a new payment program, a fixed amount for any individual or a deadline for applying. The significant development is the filed civil action and its attempt to preserve estate assets while contested claims are heard.