Newly unsealed US court documents reveal that Prince Andrew is mentioned more frequently than any other UK figure in materials connected to Jeffrey Epstein. The records, released in New York, span hundreds of pages from civil litigation involving Ghislaine Maxwell and include references to numerous well-known individuals.

Most of the documents contain interviews, depositions and supporting evidence gathered during Virginia Giuffre’s lawsuit against Maxwell. Giuffre has long accused Epstein of trafficking her as a teenager and alleges she was forced to have sex with Prince Andrew, accusations he has consistently and firmly denied. The files are not criminal charges but show how often his name arose during testimony.

Reports indicate that Andrew’s name appears in flight logs, witness statements and descriptions of events in London, New York and the Caribbean. While accounts vary in detail and reliability, he is the most frequently referenced British figure in the collection.

The unsealing follows a judge’s decision that much of the Giuffre case record should be made public. Although many names remain redacted, dozens have now been identified. For Andrew, the disclosures largely repeat information already known rather than providing new or decisive evidence.

Prince Andrew’s association with Epstein drew intense scrutiny after Epstein’s 2019 arrest and subsequent death. A widely circulated photo of Andrew with Giuffre at Maxwell’s London home became a focal point of public debate, though he has questioned the image and denies knowing Giuffre.

His 2019 BBC Newsnight interview, intended to address the allegations, was heavily criticized and resulted in him stepping back from royal duties. In 2022, he settled Giuffre’s civil lawsuit without admitting wrongdoing.

The newly released material revisits a range of earlier claims, with some witnesses placing him at properties or social settings linked to Epstein. Other accounts note uncertainty, memory gaps or a lack of direct accusations.

Overall, his prominence in the documents reflects how often his name appeared in prior testimony rather than indicating any new legal developments.