Whistleblower Uncovers Hidden Epstein Links of US Commerce Secretary
A British man, Simon Andriesz, a former managing director at a Wall Street firm, has revealed email exchanges from the 3.5 million documents released about Jeffrey Epstein that implicate Howard Lutnick, now the U.S. commerce secretary, in undisclosed business ties with the convicted sex offender.
Discovery Behind the Emails
Andriesz sifted through the public files and found a 2018 email chain where Lutnick and Epstein discussed the prospects of a joint start‑up. The exchanges were sent to an account labelled "HWL" for Howard William Lutnick and showed the finance giant’s senior execs coordinating on a digital advertising venture called Adfin.
The whistleblower forwarded those findings to members of the U.S. House Oversight Committee before Secretary Lutnick’s scheduled testimony in May, arguing that the government should disclose the relationship to the public.
Political Fallout
When Lutnick testified, he maintained he had only just learned this year that Epstein had invested in the shared venture. Democrats on the committee described the claim as a “fabrication” and sent a letter demanding his resignation. The Commerce Department downplayed the allegations, calling them “a partisan distraction.”
Lord‑Level Connections
The same files also revealed Lutnick’s firm had contemplated a 1 million‑pound loan to a firm controlled by Prince Andrew Mountbatten‑Windsor, which would have granted the prince exclusive rights to channel wealth through Cantor Fitzgerald—an arrangement that never materialised but raised concerns about undue influence.
The Whistleblower’s Plight
Andriesz, now 57, lives quietly in Cornwall after a decade‑long legal battle with his former employer. He claims the U.S. and British authorities failed to hold BGC and Cantor Fitzgerald accountable, and that he suffered retaliation. A U.S. regulator awarded him a $420,000 whistleblower prize, yet no new evidence has emerged from the companies’ claims of integrity.
No significant follow‑up on the alleged Prince‑Andrew deal has surfaced, and the related parties have declined comment. The case remains a key example of how leaked documents can reignite scrutiny over political figures and the ties they may hold to disgraced financiers.
