Posted on 08/10/2023 6:34:34 AM PDT by CFW
Jamie Dimon is between a rock and a hard place. He is either going to have to convince a jury come October that he was left in the dark by the bank’s general counsel, his compliance and money laundering executives, and the heads of his investment bank and asset and wealth division about the fact that notorious child molester Jeffrey Epstein was a client at the bank for more than a decade – which would make Dimon sound so isolated as to be unfit to be running the bank – or Dimon is going to have to admit that he lied under oath in his federal court deposition. Neither is a comfortable proposition to be facing for a jury trial currently scheduled for October 23.
JPMorgan Chase is currently facing off against three federal lawsuits before Judge Jed Rakoff in the Southern District of New York that charge the bank with facilitating Epstein’s sex trafficking operation, which included dozens of underage school girls. One lawsuit was brought by Epstein’s victims; another by the Attorney General of the U.S. Virgin Islands where Epstein owned an island compound; and a third by shareholders of the bank, which name the bank, Dimon, another bank executive and specific Board Members as defendants.
It is the lawsuit brought by the Attorney General of the U.S. Virgin Islands that is currently scheduled for trial on October 23 that poses a significant amount of legal peril for Dimon. That lawsuit alleges that JPMorgan Chase not only “facilitated” Epstein’s crimes against women and girls but “actively participated in Epstein’s sex trafficking venture.”
(Excerpt) Read more at wallstreetonparade.com ...
Sorry guys. Unless Dimon was a knowing participant, I think that he should stay in his lane, and not be in the business of debanking anyone.
All he needs to do is start pushing Biden’s agenda and the problem will vanish.
Debanking?
When someone is using a bank for criminal activities and the people running the bank know this, they have a duty to get involved.
Sorry, sex trafficking—especially underage sex trafficking—deserves a lot more severe consequence than “debanking”.
The issue of debunking applies when it’s about politics or ideology. Not crime.
“Unless Dimon was a knowing participant, I think that he should stay in his lane, and not be in the business of debanking anyone.”
There’s a world of difference between “debanking” and what Dimon should have done, which was his legally obligated duty to detect and report criminals and money launderers attempting to use his bank to facilitate their criminal operations.
Until the government wins its case, Epstein was presumed innocent.
It’s not as if JP Morgan discovered that Epstein was doing money laundering and didn’t report it to the authorities who could have looked into it. The judiciary had all the tools it needed to prosecute Epstein and assess whatever financial penalties it wished, as part of its criminal investigations.
I don’t like the idea that the bank’s head should say, “it sounds like this guy is guilty, so let’s de-bank him and send him a check.” Even though, it looked pretty likely that he was guilty, and it turned out that he was. This is retrospective quarterbacking.
If that action was allowable, what’s to stop banks with Dem-infested management from debanking Trump now, who is being accused of all sorts of treachery?
It’s sounds like they’re trying to set precedents to cut off access to people’s bank accounts, like they did to Farage and Canadians who protested Covid rules.
Everyone hates Epstein, understandably.
Maybe Chase will cancel his Chase Card, like Chase did to General Flynn.
Once again here’s a crime without any of the people who committed the crime in prison. Where are the Johns that raped these kids? Why hasn’t a single one been arrested?
Problem is will anyone believe that list once it comes out now? Who will believe the Deep State?
If you don’t believe the deep state, you might get a visit like Mr. Robinson in Provo, Utah got yesterday morning. At least, if you get too vocal about it.
Banks are not law enforcement and should cooperate with the authorities when someone is breaking the law or is suspected of doing so.
Banks should operate based on Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) and policies which should be voted on by shareholders when it affects who they do business with. Lots of banks have traditionally restricted the types of businesses they offer services to. For example, many banks avoid dealing with risky businesses like gaming/gambling. Many do not offer services to adult entertainment businesses.
The important thing is that they should not operate on the whims of management.
Banks should be treated as public accommodations and should not be allowed to deny service to individuals for political reasons. (Political views are not the basis of a protected class of people currently, but they should be.)
Re your expanded comments on banks.
“Public accomodation” is the key word here.
Banks are public accomodations. So are super markets. But, not in my opinion, custom cake makers or photographers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.