The Metropolitan Police investigation into claims that Lord Mandelson may have passed confidential government information to paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein is reportedly facing the prospect of collapse.
Detectives at Scotland Yard are said to believe they may need access to the unredacted Epstein files if they are to pursue a potential misconduct in public office charge against the former Labour heavyweight.
But senior figures within the force reportedly fear it is increasingly unlikely that the US Department of Justice will agree to hand over the material.
According to reports, earlier Met requests made under an informal understanding between the agencies to exchange information have received no response from either the DoJ or the FBI.
British police have now stepped up their approach by turning to mutual legal assistance, known as MLA, a formal process used by countries to seek help with criminal investigations or prosecutions.
The impasse between authorities in the UK and US is understood to be linked in part to concerns within Donald Trump’s administration about releasing files that could damage the President’s reputation.
There are also concerns that disclosing the documents could create a precedent for other cases and reignite wider scrutiny of the scandal surrounding Epstein.
The unredacted files are regarded as potentially crucial to any case involving the former Labour MP, as his legal team could argue that the redacted emails published by the US agency are missing context and do not provide the full picture.
As such, fresh fears have risen that the probe into Mandelson may be dropped altogether.
An investigation into whether Lord Mandelson (pictured with Epstein) handed over confidential government information to paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein may be ‘at risk of collapse’
Mandelson (pictured on April 24, 2026) has never been charged with misconduct in public office and denies any wrongdoing
The DoJ has insisted that it ‘has not refused to assist any jurisdiction investigating’ any crime in relation to Epstein, but that authorities on both sides of the pond ‘follow established and legally required procedures for sharing information and evidence’.
It comes after Mandelson resigned from the Labour Party in February in a bid to ‘avoid causing further embarrassment’ amid claims Epstein gave him $75,000 during his time as an MP.
Bank statements suggest Epstein made three $25,000 transactions referencing Lord Mandelson between 2003 and 2004.
Separate emails between the two men show that in 2009 Epstein personally wired Lord Mandelson’s now husband, Reinaldo Avila da Silva, $10,000 to fund an osteopathy course and other expenses.
Featured in the tranche of documents released by the DoJ was an image allegedly of Lord Mandelson standing in his underwear chatting with an unidentified woman who is wearing a bathrobe.
The released emails also appeared to show Mandelson leaked market-sensitive information during the 2008 financial crisis when he was serving as the Secretary of State for Business in Gordon Brown’s cabinet.
He was arrested after a tip-off from the House of Commons speaker, Sir Lindsay Hoyle, suggesting that the former Labour grandee could be a flight risk. The Met later apologised to Sir Lindsay for ‘inadvertently revealing’ he was the source.
Mandelson has never been charged with misconduct in public office and denies any wrongdoing.
Now, the Met hopes to gather enough evidence to secure a charge against Mandelson by interviewing officials and other politicians who worked with him during his time at Whitehall.
However, sources believe it would be near impossible to get adequate proof to secure a prosecution of the ex-Labour MP without access to the unredacted Epstein files.
The offence of misconduct in public office can be difficult to prosecute as a significant amount of documented evidence is required to secure a conviction.
But while some within the force are concerned redacted documents from the Epstein files could leave their legal challenge vulnerable to arguments from Mandelson’s defence, others maintain the case is ongoing, and there are hopes for a successful prosecution.
When confronted about his friendship with the paedophile financier on live TV, he said: ‘My knowledge of him is something I regret, I wish I’d never met him in the first place’.
In November 2025, Trump signed a bill ordering the release of almost 3.5 million pages of documents related to Epstein. The President had previously opposed releasing the documents, dubbing it a Democrat-led ‘hoax’.
But following pressure from Epstein’s victims and his own Republican Party, he eventually signed off on the information being released.
The DoJ has insisted that it ‘has not refused to assist any jurisdiction investigating’ any crime in relation to Epstein (pictured with Epstein in an image released by the DoJ)
The Epstein files also sparked questions about the US President’s relationship with the paedophile financier.
Trump also maintained he had banned Epstein from his Florida club, Mar-a-Lago after he made an inappropriate advance on another member’s teenage daughter, and that he ‘stole’ women who worked at the club’s spa.
A US Department of Justice spokesman said: ‘The department of justice has not refused to assist any jurisdiction investigating potential criminal conduct related to Jeffrey Epstein.
‘Both US and UK authorities follow established and legally required procedures for sharing information and evidence, and those processes ensure that any co-operation adheres to applicable laws that govern international evidence sharing and protects the integrity of ongoing matters.
‘The department remains committed to co-operating with all jurisdictions pursuing potential crimes and will continue to do so in accordance with federal law and longstanding practice.’
The Daily Mail has approached the FBI and the US Department of Justice for comment,
The Metropolitan Police declined to comment.
