New Mexico Sues Epstein's Co-Executors Over Estate Payments

New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez sued Jeffrey Epstein's attorney, Darren Indyke, and accountant, Richard Kahn, on October 21, 2026. The suit asks a court to stop both men from accepting any payments from Epstein's estate, according to the Associated Press report distributed by WREG.

The attorney general accuses the two men of knowing about the sexual abuse of girls and young women at Epstein's Zorro Ranch near Santa Fe. The lawsuit characterizes their conduct as hiding a sex trafficking operation. These are the attorney general's allegations, and the defendants have not been tried on them.

Indyke and Kahn serve as co-executors and administrators of Epstein's estate, meaning they jointly manage what he left behind. The estate is the pool from which fiduciary compensation, the fees paid to people who manage money on someone else's behalf, and other disbursements flow. The order sought would restrict those payments rather than the estate's underlying assets, so it targets the channel through which the two men draw value from the estate.

In my view, the wording is narrow, but the practical reach for two people whose roles depend on the estate could be considerable. Creditors and other claimants, who are owed money by or have claims against the estate, will want to read the complaint's specific prayer for relief, the section setting out exactly what the court is asked to order, once it is tested in court.

The state action arrives against an existing federal backdrop. In September 2026, federal prosecutors in New York were reported by The Wall Street Journal to be probing Kahn and Indyke, according to CNBC's coverage of the report. Both men have repeatedly denied any knowledge of Epstein's criminal conduct. Earlier, they told House lawmakers they were never interviewed as part of formal federal investigations, a statement reported in March 2026.

The New Mexico case is described as the first state enforcement action against Epstein associates, a characterization made in reporting by The Independent. A state attorney general can pursue civil remedies, which seek money or court orders rather than prison sentences, on a separate track from any federal criminal inquiry. The two proceedings could therefore move on different timetables and under different standards of proof, the level of evidence each side must meet.

For readers who follow estates and fiduciary litigation, the central questions are procedural. Will the court grant interim relief on payments, a temporary order that applies before the merits are heard? How will the co-executors respond to the allegations and to the scope of the requested restraint? And how will the estate's administration continue while both men face state and federal scrutiny? Each question depends on filings that have not yet been made public.