A former United States attorney general has defended the handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case, arguing that conventional rules of confidentiality should apply even in high-profile investigations. The statement comes as British members of parliament escalate calls for a cross-border financial probe into the late financier’s network.
Michael Mukasey, who served under President George W. Bush, told a legal forum in New York that “the presumption of privacy for grand jury proceedings is not a technicality but a safeguard.” His remarks were seen as a direct response to growing demands from US lawmakers and victims’ advocates for the full release of documents related to Epstein’s 2008 non-prosecution agreement in Florida.
In London, the all-party parliamentary group on human trafficking is drafting a motion urging the UK Treasury and the National Crime Agency to cooperate with international counterparts on tracking Epstein-linked assets. “The flow of money across jurisdictions demands a coordinated response,” said Labour MP Sarah Champion, who chairs the group. “We cannot allow legal boundaries to become safe havens for financial crime.”
The parliamentary initiative echoes concerns raised by the US Virgin Islands attorney general, who has alleged that Epstein’s estate may have moved millions through shell companies registered in the Caribbean. British lawmakers are particularly focused on the role of London-based financial institutions in processing transactions associated with the convicted sex offender.
Mukasey’s defence of grand jury secrecy has drawn criticism from transparency campaigners. “This is not about protecting a process,” said Carol Joyner, director of the Washington-based advocacy group Labored Voices. “It is about protecting a system that has repeatedly failed to hold the powerful to account.”
Epstein was found dead in a Manhattan federal jail in August 2019 while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges. His death was ruled a suicide. Since then, a series of court documents and media investigations have revealed the extent of his network, which included high-profile figures in politics, finance, and royalty.
The UK’s challenge has been compounded by jurisdictional limits. Epstein was a US citizen who lived primarily in New York and the Caribbean. However, records indicate he held accounts in several European banks and conducted business through entities registered in the British Virgin Islands.
“The Epstein case is a textbook example of how financial secrecy can facilitate criminal enterprise,” said Professor John Springford of the Centre for European Reform. “If the British parliament can push through a cross-border financial investigation, it could set a precedent for tackling similar networks.”
Downing Street has not yet commented on the parliamentary motion. But a Foreign Office official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the government “takes the issue of illicit financial flows very seriously” and would “consider any proposal carefully.”
The push for transparency comes amid a broader reckoning with institutional failures in the Epstein case. In February, a US judge ordered the release of hundreds of pages of court documents, including emails and deposition transcripts, which have further exposed the depth of Epstein’s connections.
British MPs argue that without a thorough financial investigation, many of Epstein’s associates and enablers will remain beyond reach. “The law must follow the money,” Champion said. “We owe it to the victims to ensure that no stone is left unturned.”
Mukasey’s intervention underscores the tensions between due process and public accountability that lie at the heart of the Epstein saga. As the legal battles continue, the transatlantic dimension of the scandal is likely to intensify, testing the limits of international cooperation in the fight against financial crime.
