Bob Weinstein paid £250,000 settlement to Harvey Weinstein's accusers from his own bank account

Harvey Weinstein’s brother wrote a £250,000 cheque from his own bank account to pay for a settlement with two British assistants who accused him of sexual harassment.

Bob Weinstein insists that he was unaware of the series of settlements signed by his older brother, and that he had no idea of the decades of abuse he perpetrated.

His claim not to know about Harvey Weinstein’s actions is significant, because it shields him from the financial fallout of any possible lawsuits.

But The New Yorker obtained a contract from the 1990s which showed that Zelda Perkins, the assistant, and another unnamed accuser, were paid out of Bob Weinstein’s own bank account - a move that helped conceal the payment from executives at Miramax and its parent company, Disney, as well as from Harvey Weinstein’s spouse.

“Regarding that payment, I only know what Harvey told me, and basically what he said was he was fooling around with two women and they were asking for money,” said Bob Weinstein. 

“And he didn’t want his wife to find out, so he asked me if I could write a cheque, and so I did, but there was nothing to indicate any kind of sexual harassment.” 

A former senior Miramax executive said that it was implausible that Bob Weinstein did not know about the nature of the allegations, which were reported to the company.

Several former employees told the magazine that they found the idea that he lacked any knowledge of the misconduct implausible. 

“Bob may not have done the things, but he was complicit in covering it up for years,” one said.

Bob Weinstein himself was accused last month of sexually harassing a crew member on the television series The Mist – a claim he denied.

Ms Perkins, like many of the women, signed a non-disclosure agreement but spoke to the New Yorker to voice her anger at the contract, which she said enabled him to continue abusing women for decades.

More than 100 women have now come forward to accused the disgraced film producer of sexual harassment or assault.

“What I want to talk about at this point is not what Harvey did,” she said. 

“It’s more about the system that protected him and that enabled him, because that’s the only thing that we can change. Money and power enabled, and the legal system has enabled. 

“Ultimately, the reason Harvey Weinstein followed the route he did is because he was allowed to, and that’s our fault. As a culture, that’s our fault.”

She said that, while working for Weinstein, she experienced nearly constant sexual harassment.

“From my very first time left alone with Harvey, I had to deal with him being present either in his underpants or totally naked,” she said.

“We had to bring girls to him. Though I wasn’t aware of it at first, I was a honeypot.”

She said Weinstein never succeeded in pressuring her into sex or any physical contact, but she called the barrage of advances “exhausting.”

She resigned after the second assistant tearfully told her of being assaulted by Weinstein.

Weinstein’s lawyers, Blair Berk and Ben Brafman, said in a statement: “Because of the pending civil litigation and related investigations, it is inappropriate to respond specifically to each of the unsupported and untruthful insinuations contained in this article. 

“Suffice it to say, Mr Weinstein strongly objects to any suggestion that his conduct at any time has ever been contrary to law. Be assured that we will respond in any appropriate legal forum, where necessary, and fully expect that Mr Weinstein will prevail against any claim of legal wrongdoing. 

“Mr Weinstein categorically denies ever engaging in any non-consensual sexual conduct with anyone and any suggestion that he acted improperly to defend himself against such claims is simply wrong.”