Prince Andrew had repeated sexual relations with an underage sex slave, who was loaned to the rich and powerful by US banker and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, US court papers allege.
The woman alleges she was flown to London, New York and the Caribbean by Epstein, and forced to have sex with the Duke of York, The Guardian reported.
The claim has been made in documents submitted to a court regarding a legal battle between US prosecutors and Epstein's alleged victims.
In the papers the woman alleges that Epstein sexually exploited her between 1999 and 2002. She claims that she was 17 when she had sex with the prince. This means she was a minor in Florida, where the court papers have been filed.
The millionaire banker Epstein and the Duke were reportedly friends until the prince broke off contact in 2009, after the banker was sentenced to 18 months imprison pleading guilty to soliciting sex from a 14-year-old girl at his Florida mansion in 2008.
Epstein has reached out-of-court settlements with other women over alleged sexual offences, but two – named as Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 in the latest court documents – are suing federal prosecutors for failing to tell them about Epstein's 2008 plea deal.
Two further women, including the one who claims to have been abused by the Duke, have also come forward with allegations against Epstein.
Some of the allegations against Epstein have been rebutted by his associate, renowned lawyer Alan Dershowitz, who told the Guardian accusations against him were "totally false and made up", adding the claims had been fabricated to extort money from Epstein.
After the allegations were originally reported Buckingham Palace said it would not comment on an ongoing legal matter. But it later took the unusual step of releasing a statement stating the allegations against Prince Andrew were false.
"This relates to long-running and ongoing civil proceedings in the US to which the Duke of York is not a party," said a Buckingham Palace spokesman, according to the Telegraph. "As such we would not comment on the detail. However, for the avoidance of doubt, any suggestion of impropriety with underage minors is categorically untrue."