“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?