4 ms·

seems a bit strange that a financial institution he was doing business with is paying this... (although I know basically nothing about the case)

s1artibartfast 3y ago
I thought it was a bit strange and shocking as well. Reading articles it seems that the case relied on individuals at JPMorgan knowing that they were facilitating illegal Financial transactions related to sex trafficking. I don't know how the plaintiffs could know this, but it seems like someone inside JP Morgan Had information if they are setteling. This is why institutions and employees should not fraternize with clients
- arp242 3y ago
  According to the Reuters article "JPMorgan ignored internal warnings and overlooked red flags about Epstein because he had been a valuable client."[1] It links to [2] for more details and apparently it all seems to hinge on this Jes Staley guy who exchanged some emails. It seems somewhat iffy to me: in hindsight it's always easy to label these sort of things as "warnings" and "red flags" (no mention of "internal warnings" in that article though, so not sure where that's from). Maybe there's something more ... I don't know, but with $37 billion/year net income and $3.7 trillion in assets you can afford to lose $290M to make a headache go away and reduce the risk that more stuff will come out (even if you don't know whether there is actually something more, as a matter of risk management). [1]: https://www.reuters.com/legal/jpmorgan-agrees-settle-with-epstein-victim-class-action-suit-2023-06-12/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/jpmorgan-agrees-settle-with-ep... [2]: https://www.reuters.com/business/former-barclays-ceo-staley-discussed-disney-princesses-with-epstein-lawsuit-2023-02-16/ https://www.reuters.com/business/former-barclays-ceo-staley-...
wefarrell 3y ago
Maybe the plaintiffs have evidence that JP Morgan doesn’t want to go public.
- annoyinglawyer 3y ago
  Yeah this is my bet. I bet it got to discovery and JP Morgan didn't want to reveal things they would be required to reveal if the litigation went forward. The Plaintiffs could ask for pretty much every communication related to Epstein and background on every employee and other bank clients that are even tenuously connected to Epstein. They probably caved because they want to minimize the dirty laundry getting aired out.
paddw 3y ago
This is basically extortion, in order for JPMorgan not to take reputational damage. I doubt they did anything seriously out of line

s1artibartfast 3y ago

I thought it was a bit strange and shocking as well. Reading articles it seems that the case relied on individuals at JPMorgan knowing that they were facilitating illegal Financial transactions related to sex trafficking. I don't know how the plaintiffs could know this, but it seems like someone inside JP Morgan Had information if they are setteling. This is why institutions and employees should not fraternize with clients

arp242 3y ago
According to the Reuters article "JPMorgan ignored internal warnings and overlooked red flags about Epstein because he had been a valuable client."[1] It links to [2] for more details and apparently it all seems to hinge on this Jes Staley guy who exchanged some emails. It seems somewhat iffy to me: in hindsight it's always easy to label these sort of things as "warnings" and "red flags" (no mention of "internal warnings" in that article though, so not sure where that's from). Maybe there's something more ... I don't know, but with $37 billion/year net income and $3.7 trillion in assets you can afford to lose $290M to make a headache go away and reduce the risk that more stuff will come out (even if you don't know whether there is actually something more, as a matter of risk management). [1]: https://www.reuters.com/legal/jpmorgan-agrees-settle-with-epstein-victim-class-action-suit-2023-06-12/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/jpmorgan-agrees-settle-with-ep... [2]: https://www.reuters.com/business/former-barclays-ceo-staley-discussed-disney-princesses-with-epstein-lawsuit-2023-02-16/ https://www.reuters.com/business/former-barclays-ceo-staley-...

wefarrell 3y ago

Maybe the plaintiffs have evidence that JP Morgan doesn’t want to go public.

annoyinglawyer 3y ago
Yeah this is my bet. I bet it got to discovery and JP Morgan didn't want to reveal things they would be required to reveal if the litigation went forward. The Plaintiffs could ask for pretty much every communication related to Epstein and background on every employee and other bank clients that are even tenuously connected to Epstein. They probably caved because they want to minimize the dirty laundry getting aired out.

paddw 3y ago

This is basically extortion, in order for JPMorgan not to take reputational damage. I doubt they did anything seriously out of line