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

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-...