Peter Mandelson has resigned from the Labour party over his links to the convicted child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.Here’s how the depth of their relationship – both before and after Epstein’s conviction for sexual crimes – has come to light.The files show evidence Mandelson advised Epstein on how the investment bank JPMorgan might lobby the government – of which he was a part – on plans for a tax on bankers’ bonuses.Among the documents is a chain of emails between Epstein and Mandelson, in which the former asks if the new tax might only apply to the cash portion of bonuses.“Trying hard to amend,” Mandelson wrote back on 15 December 2009.

“Treasury digging in but I am on case.”Mandelson, who was then business secretary in Gordon Brown’s government, suggested two days later that the head of the investment bank call the then chancellor, Alistair Darling, and “mildly threaten” him.He has since told the Financial Times: “Every UK and international bank was making the same argument about the impact on UK financial services.My conversations in government at the time reflected the views of the sector as a whole, not a single individual.”Brown has now asked the cabinet secretary to investigate Mandelson’s apparent disclosure of highly sensitive government information to Epstein.

An email, which had the subject line “Business issues”, was sent by Brown’s special adviser Nick Butler on 13 June 2009 after the global financial crisis.It detailed potential policy measures and suggested the government had saleable assets.Mandelson forwarded the email to Epstein and said: “Interesting note that’s gone to the PM.”Epstein responded to Mandelson, asking “what salable (sic) assets?” A reply from a redacted email address said: “Land, property I guess.”Brown said on Monday: “I have today asked the cabinet secretary to investigate the disclosure of confidential and market sensitive information from the then business department during the global financial crisis.

”Butler said he was considering reporting the matter to the police.“We – that is all the people included on this email and many others – worked on the basis of trust, which allowed us to float ideas.I am disgusted by the breach of trust, presumably intended to give Epstein the chance to make money,” he told the Times.Downing Street said Starmer had asked Chris Wormald, the cabinet secretary, to conduct “an urgent review” looking at “all available information regarding Mandelson’s contacts with Epstein during his period as a government minister”.There are at least two occasions on which it is alleged Epstein handed large sums of money to Lord Mandelson or his husband.

Mandelson directly referenced one of the claims when announcing his resignation from the Labour party.Bank statements held among the Epstein files released by the US Department of Justice appear to show that from 2003 to 2004 the disgraced financier paid a total of $75,000 (£54,750) into bank accounts of which Mandelson – then a Labour MP – was believed to be a beneficiary.The former cabinet minister had already come under pressure over the second allegation that his husband, Reinaldo Avila da Silva, had received £10,000 from Epstein about two months after the convicted sex offender was released from prison in 2009.Epstein had served 13 months of an 18-month sentence for soliciting prostitution from a minor.The files suggest the money was to fund an osteopathy course and other expenses.

Writing to Hollie Ridley, the general secretary of the Labour party, Mandelson said: “Allegations which I believe to be false that he made financial payments to me 20 years ago, and of which I have no record or recollection, need investigating by me,While doing this, I do not wish to cause further embarrassment to the Labour party and I am therefore stepping down from membership of the party,”It had been known for years that Mandelson was linked to Epstein,It has long been a matter of public record Mandelson stayed in the disgraced financier’s flat in New York while the latter was serving his prison term,And a briefing delivered to the prime minister, Keir Starmer, on the reputational risk in appointing Mandelson as ambassador to the US mentioned official records showing he had facilitated a meeting between Epstein and Tony Blair in 2002.

But a glimpse of the extent of the relationship between the former minister and Epstein would lead to Mandelson’s withdrawal from Washington in September 2025.Documents released then showed Mandelson had referred to Epstein as his “best pal” in a letter included within an alleged birthday book that was released by US lawmakers.The bundle was collated by Ghislaine Maxwell – Epstein’s accomplice and fellow convicted sex offender – for his 50th birthday in 2003.It also included contributions thought to be from the US president, Donald Trump, and former president Bill Clinton.At the time, Mandelson’s spokesperson told the BBC he had “long been clear that he very much regrets ever having been introduced to Epstein”.

He survived that revelation.But more was to come within days.The prime minister, who had been facing questions about his judgment after standing by Mandelson, removed him from his post when it emerged he had emailed Epstein suggesting his 2008 conviction for soliciting a child for prostitution was wrongful and should be challenged.No 10 said it had not known about emails, in which Mandelson wrote: “I can still barely understand it.It just could not happen in Britain.

You have to be incredibly resilient, fight for early release and be philosophical about it as much as you can.”And, in November last year, documents showed Mandelson had remained in contact with Epstein until at least 2016.Emails released by the House oversight committee, which is conducting an inquiry into the US government’s handling of the Epstein case, included one from Epstein to Mandelson on 6 November 2016 that said: “63 years old.You made it.” The former ambassador replied: “Just.

I have decided to extend my life by spending more of it in the US.”Last month, Mandelson apologised for his association with Epstein – having initially refused to do so in a BBC interview.He said he had not wanted to be “held responsible for his crimes of which I was ignorant, not indifferent”.But had decided to “apologise unequivocally for doing so to the women and girls who suffered”, adding: “I want to say loudly and clearly that I was wrong to believe him following his conviction and to continue my association with him afterwards.”