Epstein Survivors Are Suing the Foundation That Funded Him for Decades

Reviewed by Survivor Justice Alliance · Updated 2026-08-01

What the lawsuits allege

Survivors of Jeffrey Epstein have filed civil lawsuits in New York against billionaire retail executive Les Wexner, the Wexner Foundation, and a corporate entity Wexner set up to purchase a Manhattan townhouse. The suits allege that Wexner provided Epstein with roughly 200 million dollars over about two decades and gave him access to resources, including trustee status within the Wexner Foundation from the early 1990s through the mid 2000s, that allegedly allowed Epstein to build and sustain his abuse.

Central to the claims is the townhouse itself. Survivors allege the property, which Wexner's corporate entity purchased and later allowed Epstein to use for years, became a location where abuse took place. The lawsuits argue that providing that property, combined with years of financial backing, went beyond simple business dealings and amounted to material support for Epstein's conduct.

Wexner's response

A spokesperson for Wexner has firmly denied the allegations, stating that Wexner had no knowledge of Epstein's crimes and describing Wexner himself as someone who was deceived. According to the spokesperson, Wexner paid Epstein only for wealth management services and severed all ties with him years before Epstein's conduct became public. The spokesperson has said the claims will be vigorously contested in court.

That denial sets up a legal fight that will likely turn on what Wexner knew, and when. Unlike a criminal case, where prosecutors must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, civil claims like these are typically decided under a lower evidentiary standard, meaning survivors do not need to prove Wexner directly participated in abuse, only that his funding and access materially enabled it.

Why survivors are suing the funder, not just the abuser

With Epstein dead since 2019, survivors seeking accountability have increasingly turned to the people and institutions around him, a strategy that mirrors how survivors pursue dioceses, schools, and youth organizations rather than only individual abusers who have died or have no assets. The theory is the same across all of these cases: institutions and individuals who provide the money, property, or cover that allows abuse to continue can carry their own civil liability, separate from the abuser's own conduct.

For survivors, this approach matters practically as well as symbolically. A foundation with substantial charitable assets, or a wealthy individual, may represent the only realistic source of financial accountability once the direct abuser is deceased or has no remaining resources of his own.

How Enabler Liability Claims Differ From Claims Against an Abuser

Suing the people and institutions around an abuser, rather than only the abuser, involves a different set of legal questions. Here are the basics.

1. Financial support as a legal theory: Claims can allege that providing money, property, or resources materially enabled abuse, even without direct participation in it.
2. Knowledge is often the central dispute: These cases frequently turn on what a funder or institution knew, or should have known, about the person they were supporting.
3. Death of the primary abuser does not end accountability: When the direct abuser has died or has no assets, claims against enablers can be the only remaining path to compensation.
4. Corporate entities can be named defendants: Property-holding companies and foundations, not just individuals, can be sued directly when they are alleged to have provided material support.
5. Denial is a standard early response: Defendants in these cases routinely deny knowledge, which is a normal part of civil litigation and not itself evidence either way.
6. Civil claims use a lower evidentiary bar: Unlike criminal cases, civil lawsuits do not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt, only a preponderance of the evidence.

Related