The congressional interview was supposed to uncover what billionaire Leon Black knew about Jeffrey Epstein, the extraordinary payments between them and secret agreements involving women whose identities remained hidden.

Instead, lawmakers encountered refusal after refusal.

Black invoked legal privilege. He resisted questions about nondisclosure agreements. Committee members warned that subpoenas would follow.

Then, as the closed-door session descended into confrontation, Black delivered a final, defiant message.

“I’m not here to talk about confidential NDAs,” he told members of the House Oversight Committee, according to a newly released transcript reviewed by ABC News.

“I’m not here to talk about who has NDAs.”

Soon afterward, the interview ended abruptly.

The newly disclosed exchange has intensified scrutiny of Black’s long and exceptionally lucrative relationship with Epstein, the convicted sex offender whose financial ties to billionaires, politicians and other influential figures continue to fuel congressional investigations years after his death.

Black, the former head of investment giant Apollo Global Management, has denied participating in Epstein’s criminal activity and has rejected suggestions that the two men were close personal friends.

But records show their financial relationship was enormous.

Epstein reportedly received more than $170 million from Black for what was described as tax and estate-planning advice, according to Senate Finance Committee records reviewed by ABC News.

The size of those payments has long raised questions.

Epstein did not have a conventional public profile as a leading tax attorney, estate planner or investment manager. Yet he was compensated at a level that would have placed him among the most highly paid financial advisers in the country.

Congressional investigators are now attempting to determine precisely what services he performed—and whether his role extended into private agreements involving women.

During last month’s transcribed interview, Black acknowledged discussing at least one nondisclosure agreement with Epstein, according to ABC News.

Black insisted, however, that Epstein did not advise him on drafting or negotiating the arrangement.

“He was not my NDA adviser,” Black said.

The agreement reportedly involved a woman whom Black accused of blackmailing and extorting him. According to his testimony, he agreed to pay her more than $21 million over a period of 15 years.

Those accusations remain Black’s characterization of the dispute. The woman’s account and the full terms of the agreement were not included in the material provided.

Black told investigators that Epstein knew about the agreement and related payments because he was involved in managing Black’s broader finances.

That explanation created a narrow distinction.

Epstein was not advising Black on the NDA itself, Black maintained. But he was sufficiently involved in Black’s financial affairs to know about a multimillion-dollar private payment arrangement.

Lawmakers apparently wanted more.

They sought information about how many NDAs existed, who had signed them and whether Epstein had played any role in handling the financial or legal consequences.

Black resisted those questions by repeatedly invoking attorney-client privilege, according to the report.

Privilege can protect confidential communications between lawyers and clients when legal advice is being sought. But it does not automatically shield every discussion involving finances, business advisers or the existence of agreements.

The dispute became serious enough that committee members moved toward compulsory process.

ABC News reported that lawmakers issued subpoenas after Black refused to provide the requested information voluntarily.

His final comments conveyed deep frustration with the direction of the questioning.

Rather than explain the agreements, he drew a line around them.

He would not identify who had NDAs.

He would not discuss their confidential contents.

And he would not allow the committee to explore them without a legal fight.

The confrontation also reopened questions about how Black himself viewed his relationship with Epstein.

Black reportedly rejected the description of Epstein as a close friend, despite emails in which Epstein allegedly referred to the two men as best friends.

“Friendship is an amorphous term,” Black told lawmakers.

He acknowledged that Epstein knew intimate details about his family’s tax and estate-planning entities and that he visited Epstein and met people within his social circle.

But Black insisted the relationship remained primarily financial.

“We were never best friends,” he said.

The denial highlights the strange difficulty many wealthy Epstein associates have faced when attempting to describe their connections to him.

Epstein was often close enough to know their finances, travel with them, introduce them to influential people or enter their homes.

Yet after his crimes became impossible to ignore, those same associates frequently emphasized distance.

He was an adviser, not a friend.

A social contact, not a confidant.

A financial professional, not a trusted companion.

Black’s testimony followed that pattern.

He acknowledged that Epstein knew intimate details about his family finances, received more than $170 million for advisory work and was informed about a private agreement involving payments exceeding $21 million.

Yet he disputed that they were personally close.

For investigators, the label may matter less than the access.

Epstein occupied a position that allowed him to observe some of the most private financial and personal affairs of one of America’s wealthiest men.

The NDAs could help lawmakers understand the true extent of that role.

Black’s refusal does not establish wrongdoing. Nondisclosure agreements are widely used to resolve private disputes, and individuals have legitimate privacy and legal interests in preventing confidential material from being publicly exposed.

But secrecy surrounding Epstein has produced enormous public distrust.

Survivors have accused institutions and powerful people of withholding information for years. Every sealed agreement and unexplained payment feeds suspicion that critical facts remain protected behind wealth and legal privilege.

Black has now agreed to return.

His attorney confirmed that he is expected to appear for a deposition on September 3. He is also reportedly preparing to provide the requested nondisclosure agreements to the committee.

That means the documents he refused to discuss may finally move into congressional hands.

Investigators will likely examine who signed them, what disputes they settled, how the payments were structured and why Epstein was informed.

The answers may support Black’s assertion that Epstein was merely a financial adviser with knowledge of his accounts.

Or they may reveal a deeper involvement than he has publicly acknowledged.

For now, the transcript preserves the final image of the first interview: a billionaire under pressure, lawmakers demanding answers and the name Jeffrey Epstein hanging over every unanswered question.

Black insisted he had not come to discuss the secret agreements.

Congress has now made clear that he may not have a choice.