Money Morals

Leon Black in Epstein Land

Black arrives to testify at a closed-door interview with the House Oversight Committee in Washington, D.C., 26 June 2026. Photo credit: Kevin Dietsch

It has been a source of wonder how celebrity paedophile, flesh presser, sex trafficker and financier Jeffrey Epstein managed to obtain his lucre. Was he more than a deft confidence trickster, a liar with astonishing talents to secure the trust of the powerful and the foolish? Or did he simply attract animals of similar proclivities? Whatever the case, Leon Black, a billionaire investor and former Apollo Global Management chief executive, is one who offers some clues. Peering into the Black heart reveals a picture distinctly unsavoury.

An independent review commissioned by the board of Apollo in 2021 found no link between Black and Epstein’s expansive criminal conduct. It did, however, find that Epstein received something in the order of $158 million from 2012 to 2017 on topics relating to tax, trust and estate planning, philanthropic projects and the operation of his Family Office. Dechert LLP, the authors of the review, found that Apollo itself never retained Epstein directly for any services, nor did Epstein invest in any of its funds. But even the review somehow manages to elevate Epstein’s professionalism in a financial sense, however foul he might have been in other respects: What mattered was that he was rather good on the money side of things, milking the glorious financial system for what it is: a grand con. Epstein may have been “generally a disruptive and caustic force within [Black‘s] Family Office” and did not always offer “useful” advice, but “many witnesses believed that Epstein had creative ideas that no other advisor had proposed and would push Family Office employees to achieve greater performance than they might have achieved on their own.” The work of this particular Mr Motivator was so fruitful as to confer, according to Black, “more than $1 billion and as much as $2 billion or more in value to Black.”

According to the Dechert review, Black saw little in the way of problems using the services of a man convicted for two felony offences involving the procuring of a person under the age of 18 for prostitution and solicitation for prostitution. There was nothing “to suggest that Black, during the period of their relationship, knew anything about Epstein‘s criminal activity aside from” the slated conviction.

The billionaire “believed that Epstein had served his time and it would not be inappropriate to maintain a personal and professional relationship with Epstein.” The lean and constipated nature of Black’s moral universe is much in evidence, with the law firm suggesting three reasons why Epstein was still considered suitable. The first lay in a belief that the severity of the offence was confined to soliciting a 17-year-old prostitute whom Epstein thought was older. The second reason went to a chilling form of groupthink, showing a breezy dismissal of the financier’s criminal taint: “numerous prominent figures, including CEOs, banking institutions, leading figures in technology, science and business, diplomats, and Nobel Laureates, continued to maintain social and business relationships with Epstein.” The third reason went to the noble sentiments of Black: that rehabilitation and “giving people second chances” was the appropriate thing to do. “Based on this belief, he has maintained relationships with other notable figures in the business world, such as Michael Milken and Martha Stewart, who have spent time in prison.” Priorities, indeed.

The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee is trying to kick up a fuss about Black’s failure to comply with the body’s subpoenas seeking documents and testimony on the Epstein relationship. In June, he walked out of the committee while giving voluntary testimony during a closed-door interview after being asked about nondisclosure agreements (NDAs) he might have signed. The House investigators then issued Black with two subpoenas, the first requiring him to attend a deposition, the second demanding that he submit various documents, including relevant NDAs.

In that great, greasy tradition of American litigiousness, Black armed himself with a legal carapace and sued the committee. The filed lawsuit sought declaratory and injunctive relief, calling the subpoenas “invalid to the extent they exceed the OGR‘s [House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform’s] delegated authority in seeking private information that bears no legitimate connection to the OGR’s legislative purpose.” Not content with focusing on the issue of overextended authority, Black’s lawyers were also charmless in focusing on the purported welfare of women. “[T]he subpoenas would also expose women who value their privacy, who have no known or public connection to Epstein, who bargained for confidentiality and have refused to release it, and who have no ability to protect themselves and their privacy before the Committee.” How considerate of Black to be so thoughtful.

The Committee is now mulling over what to do regarding Black’s failure to attend his deposition on 3 September, which had been initially scheduled for 16 July. A full mark-up is set to take place on 15 September to consider a resolution and accompanying report on whether Black is found in contempt of Congress. That will hardly matter. The broader sense here, and one that seemingly eludes the Congressional investigators, is where the actual power continues to reside in all its towering, toxic majesty. In Washington, the elected continue to be bought and sold by the very same class that fed and drew benefit from Epstein’s odious, thriving existence. His moral depravity and cruelties were all manifestations of a disease that sees no risk of being cured anytime too soon.