Formerly convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein was a client of JPMorgan’s private bank, and the bank discovered $1 billion in questionable activity on Epstein’s account.
According to a lawyer working for the US Virgin Islands, JPMorgan alerted the US Department of Treasury to the questionable transactions.
In the 16 years after the controversy first came to light, this is the first time the value of transactions involving Epstein’s affairs has been revealed, according to Bloomberg.
Since Epstein owned a private island where some of his victims were being trafficked, the USVI is bringing legal action against the bank for facilitating Epstein’s trafficking through its jurisdiction.
It asserts that Epstein’s activities were made easier by the large value of transactions, which supports its own claim that the bank profited from its client’s unlawful behaviour and disregarded what amounted to warning signs.
On August 31, Mimi Liu, a lawyer for the USVI, stated in federal court in Manhattan: “JPMorgan was a full-service bank for Jeffrey Epstein’s sex trafficking.”
After Epstein committed suicide in a Manhattan jail one month after his arrest on allegations of sex trafficking in 2019, JPMorgan filed notice of the transactions.
JPMorgan has already mentioned its disclosures to the federal regulator of roughly 150 cash transactions made by Epstein between 2002 and 2013 and continues to refute claims that it disregarded its client’s activities.
The bank’s solicitors contended that because JPMorgan was not a victim of human trafficking, the bank had not interfered with a federal investigation. They also noted that the USVI had not shown any particular proof to support their claim.
Following the depositions of former and present employees, the bank has also denied knowing of Epstein’s activities.
JPMorgan claims that the USVI is dodging its own failure to take action about Epstein’s activities by demanding $190m from the bank.
Trial in the matter is set for October. Prior to that, US District Judge Jed Rakoff will determine whether to grant both parties’ petitions for a summary judgement in lieu of a trial.