A New York courtroom has released financier Leon Black without charge following his testimony in the ongoing Epstein-linked legal proceedings. Black, whose business ties with the deceased sex offender have been scrutinised since 2019, provided evidence behind closed doors. The lack of any formal accusation against him has drawn sharp reactions, particularly from across the Atlantic, where the British government is now facing mounting pressure to launch its own independent inquiry into the Epstein network’s UK connections.
Black’s testimony was part of a civil deposition related to his relationship with Epstein, a convicted sex trafficker who died in federal custody in 2019. The hearing was highly anticipated for potential revelations about high-profile individuals alleged to have participated in or enabled Epstein’s crimes. Yet the billionaire emerged without charge, his legal team issuing a statement that he had “cooperated fully” and that there was “no evidence of wrongdoing.”
But for many in Britain, Black’s freedom is a symptom of a deeper failure in transparency. The US investigation has exposed a global network of enablers, and several prominent British figures, including Prince Andrew, have been named in court documents. Today’s outcome has reignited calls for a UK-wide inquiry, one that could compel testimony under oath and force disclosure of the Metropolitan Police’s past handling of Epstein’s activities on British soil.
“We need to see the full picture,” said Sir Edward Garnier, a former solicitor-general, speaking to the BBC. “The United States has moved forward with considerable vigour, but there remain gaps in our own jurisdiction. A statutory inquiry would have the power to call witnesses, seize documents, and produce a comprehensive report. Anything less is an insult to the victims.”
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has so far resisted demands for a public inquiry, arguing that ongoing legal proceedings in the US and the CPS’s own review should suffice. But critics point to the repeated failures of previous investigations, including a 2015 review of the Met’s handling of the case, which was later described as “insufficiently robust” by the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC).
The data underscores the scale of the issue. According to the US Department of Justice, Epstein’s trafficking network operated across at least six countries, with victims numbering over 100, though likely far higher. The UK was a key transit hub: Epstein owned a London townhouse, entertained at the most exclusive clubs, and used British banking channels to move millions. Yet no British politician or senior figure has been formally charged.
The scientific reality of such cases is that they rely on networks of complicity, structures that resist legal scrutiny without forensic-level financial and digital tracing. It is akin to mapping the carbon footprint of a global corporation: without subpoena power and cross-border cooperation, the emissions remain invisible. The same logic applies to trafficking networks: without a statutory inquiry, the flows of assets, contacts, and influence cannot be fully traced.
Black’s alliance with Epstein is well documented. The two met in 1994, and Epstein later became Black’s “strategic advisor” for Apollo Global Management. Black paid Epstein over $50 million for tax and estate planning services, sums that have raised eyebrows but not criminal charges. In 2021, Black stepped down as Apollo’s CEO, citing health reasons, but he remains a major shareholder. Today’s hearing was part of a civil suit brought by two Epstein victims against Black, who have alleged that he was complicit in Epstein’s sex trafficking. Black has consistently denied these claims.
The British government’s position is becoming ever more untenable. The House of Commons Home Affairs Committee has already launched a non-statutory inquiry into the Epstein case, but its powers are limited: it cannot compel witnesses under oath or demand documents. A full public inquiry would have those powers, and its findings could pave the way for prosecutions.
A 2021 report by the International Bar Association found that countries with statutory inquiries in such cases (e.g., the Australian Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse) produced significant changes in law enforcement and victim support. The UK’s reluctance to follow suit raises legitimate questions about whose interests are being served.
The temperature is rising, both in the political sphere and in the public consciousness. As one victim’s lawyer commented, “The US has proven that no one is above the law. Britain needs to do the same.” It is a matter of urgency, and the lack of action so far is not a pause, but a symptom of a system still unwilling to confront the full scope of the problem.
For now, Leon Black walks free. But the arc of this story is far from bent towards justice. The next move belongs to the British government, and it must be one of transparency, not silence.
