Proximity as Risk: What the Epstein Files Teach Us About Institutional Integrity

Qs & As

By Lex

In light of the ongoing disclosures known as the “Epstein Files,” a number of respected figures in both the US and Europe have stepped down from prominent positions following the release of documents revealing regular and sustained email correspondence with Jeffrey Epstein — an American financier and convicted sex offender who was later accused of operating a large-scale sex-trafficking network involving minors and powerful associates. Several of these resignations have occurred in circumstances where the disclosed communications do not point to illegal activity or overtly improper conduct but rather suggest sustained proximity to Epstein and his wider network.

In this week’s Q&As, Lex examines how Mauritian law and professional ethics assess such associations, the resulting reputational damage or institutional responses, and the line between criminal liability and ethical or governance accountability.

* In several recent cases linked to the “Epstein Files,” high-profile figures have resigned despite the absence of evidence of illegal activity. Does this suggest that, in practice, the “fit and proper person” test for public officials and company directors can take precedence over the principle of “innocent until proven guilty”?

The presumption of “innocent until proven guilty” is a core principle of criminal law, protecting individuals from state punishment unless guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt. It concerns criminal liability only.

The “fit and proper person” test for public officials and company directors is a regulatory mechanism designed to ensure that individuals in positions of influence possess the integrity, competence, and financial soundness necessary to discharge their duties, safeguard institutional stability, maintain public trust, and uphold high standards of conduct.

* Is this the reason why the Bank of Mauritius, in fulfilling its mandate to regulate and supervise the banking sector, places significant emphasis on the “fit and proper” test when assessing candidates for the position of CEO of private commercial banks in order to safeguard the interests of depositors — even if the application of that test occasionally leads to unintended outcomes?

Assessing candidates for the position of CEO of private commercial banks is a critical regulatory function, primarily aimed at safeguarding depositors’ interests and maintaining financial stability. This assessment is often conducted through a rigorous “fit and proper person” test.

Even if the application of this test is stringent, it is essential to ensure that those leading financial institutions possess the necessary integrity, competence, and financial soundness to manage risks effectively.

* Can the “problematic proximity” of a politician, senior public official, or company director to a criminal network reasonably be regarded as sufficient grounds for a government or corporate body to seek or compel their resignation, with a view to safeguarding institutional integrity and preventing political or reputational damage?

Yes, the “problematic proximity” of a politician, senior public official, or company director to a criminal network may reasonably be regarded as sufficient grounds to seek or compel their resignation. However, such action is complex and context-dependent, and generally rests on the mitigation of reputational, legal, and institutional risk rather than on the existence of a criminal conviction.

While proximity does not equate to proven criminal guilt, it is often treated as a significant risk factor that may justify removal in order to protect the integrity of a government, public office, or corporate body.

* How do international codes of conduct — such as the UK Ministerial Code or the EU Transparency Rules — define “reputational damage,” and at what point can a private friendship or association amount to a professional breach of duty or contract?

International codes of conduct generally frame “reputational damage” as conduct that undermines public confidence in the integrity, impartiality, and proper functioning of public institutions. For example, the UK Ministerial Code emphasises that ministers must uphold the highest standards of propriety and avoid conflicts of interest, both actual and perceived, that could compromise trust in government. Similarly, the Code of Conduct for Members of the House of Commons prohibits behaviour that would cause significant damage to the reputation and integrity of the House as a whole.

Importantly, “reputational damage” does not require proof of criminal wrongdoing. The threshold is often whether the conduct creates a reasonable perception that an official’s judgment may be influenced, or that institutional integrity is at risk.

A personal relationship constitutes a professional breach if it creates a conflict of interest, undisclosed bias, or objectively undermines public trust. The violation hinges not on the friendship itself, but on whether it compromises — or appears to compromise — the impartial discharge of official duties.

 * French prosecutors are reportedly using unsealed U.S. documents to investigate Jack Lang for tax fraud linked to Jeffrey Epstein’s offshore network. This raises a critical legal question: would evidence from the “Epstein Files” be admissible in a Mauritian court if a local national were implicated in similar money laundering or misconduct?

France’s former culture minister Jack Lang and his daughter Caroline are being investigated by the country’s financial crimes prosecutors for “laundering of aggravated tax-fraud proceeds” after the latest release of documents showing the depth of the family’s links to late US financier and sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

Information disclosed in the “Epstein Files” (unsealed court records, FBI files, and flight logs) is generally not directly admissible as evidence in a criminal court to prove guilt, although it serves as highly valuable investigative material. While the documents can be used to start new investigations, build cases, or impeach witnesses, they face significant legal hurdles regarding admissibility under standard rules of evidence.

* Peter Mandelson resigned from the House of Lords and the Labour Party after the Epstein files allegedly revealed that he had leaked market-sensitive government briefings — including details concerning bank bailouts and asset sales during the 2008 financial crisis — to Jeffrey Epstein, prompting a Metropolitan Police investigation for Misconduct in Public Office. What does this episode suggest about the prevailing governance culture in the United Kingdom?

The United Kingdom’s governance culture is rooted in a highly centralized parliamentary system and an uncodified constitution. It depends heavily on conventions, informal norms, and expectations of propriety to regulate the behaviour of ministers and public officials.

* In a Mauritian context, would comparable allegations — if supported by documentary disclosures of a similar nature — justify the resignation or removal of a minister, Member of Parliament, or senior public official, even before the conclusion of any criminal proceedings? What legal, constitutional, or ethical considerations would need to come into play for such action to occur?

Good governance in Mauritius is grounded in accountability, transparency, and adherence to the rule of law, supported by institutions mandated to investigate corruption and financial crime. While allegations alone do not automatically require removal from office, credible evidence of serious misconduct may generate constitutional and political pressure for a minister or public official to resign or step aside in order to preserve public confidence and the integrity of governmental processes.

As a general principle, unethical conduct may warrant the resignation of a minister or public official, particularly where it undermines public confidence or impairs the proper discharge of official duties.

* It would seem that Mauritian criminal law, rooted in the Criminal Code and common-law principles, does not criminalise association per se. Liability generally requires knowledge, and participation or intent in an unlawful act. And mere correspondence or proximity, without evidence of facilitation or complicity, is insufficient to establish criminal responsibility. Is that correct?

Under the Mauritian Criminal Code and its related statutes, the legal framework distinguishes between mere association and criminal conspiracy or organization. Liability attaches only to the latter, specifically when there is a proven intent to commit distinct criminal acts.

What this means is that mere association with a person who later turns out to be involved in wrongdoing is not, by itself, a crime. Criminal responsibility normally requires some combination of knowledge, intent, and participation (or assistance).

* Can employers or appointing authorities lawfully terminate employment or compel a resignation based on reputational risk stemming from an employee’s lawful private associations? Furthermore, how do courts determine if such actions are reasonable, proportionate, and fair?

While employers may seek to mitigate reputational damage, such actions are generally only lawful if there is a demonstrable, substantial, and direct link between the private association and a detrimental impact on the employer’s business or the employee’s ability to perform their role.

Courts evaluate the fairness of these measures by applying a “reasonableness” test — specifically examining whether the decision falls within the “band of reasonable responses” available to a prudent employer under those circumstances.

 * How do professional codes of ethics in Mauritius (covering law, finance, academia, and the public service) distinguish between the “appearance of impropriety” and actual wrongdoing? Furthermore, can ethical breaches occur when conduct is lawful but nonetheless damages institutional credibility?

The “appearance of impropriety” and “actual wrongdoing” represent two distinct thresholds in Mauritian ethical and legal scrutiny. While actual wrongdoing requires proof of a specific, prohibited act, the appearance of impropriety focuses on public perception and whether a reasonable, informed person might suspect a conflict of interest.

In Mauritius, codes of ethics — such as the Code of Ethics for Public Officers — explicitly state that officers must not bring the service into disrepute through their private activities. Thus, an ethical breach can indeed arise from lawful conduct if it objectively undermines public trust.

* Regarding disclosure, does Mauritius mandate that professionals or politicians reveal relationships that could later be perceived as conflicts of interest?

Yes, Mauritius has established significant, legally mandated disclosure obligations and ethical standards for public officials — including politicians and civil servants — as well as private sector professionals such as directors. These mandates require the disclosure of relationships, interests, or situations that could be perceived as conflicts of interest and are primarily aimed at upholding institutional integrity and preventing corruption.

Mauritius Times ePaper Friday 13 February 2026