JPMorgan Chase & Co. urged a judge to throw out a lawsuit in which it’s accused of supporting Jeffrey Epstein’s sex-trafficking venture, claiming the late sex offender’s victim is on the wrong path in seeking compensation from the bank.
(Bloomberg) — JPMorgan Chase & Co. urged a judge to throw out a lawsuit in which it’s accused of supporting Jeffrey Epstein’s sex-trafficking venture, claiming the late sex offender’s victim is on the wrong path in seeking compensation from the bank.
In a hearing in Manhattan federal court Monday, JPMorgan denied it had any knowledge that Epstein trafficked young women — even though the bank has accused its former top executive, Jes Staley, of sexually assaulting one of Epstein’s victims.
One of Epstein’s victims, using the pseudonym Jane Doe, sued JPMorgan and Deutsche Bank AG under the sex-trafficking statute, claiming Epstein’s venture wouldn’t have been possible without the support of the banks, as well as the “quid pro quo” arrangements they made with him. But JPMorgan argued that although the conduct alleged in the woman’s lawsuit was abhorrent, it didn’t meet the legal definition or standard for sex trafficking.
“It is sexual assault,” JPMorgan’s attorney Felicia Ellsworth told US District Judge Jed Rakoff, asking him to dismiss the lawsuit. JPMorgan’s lawyers said Jane Doe had failed to prove Staley or the bank were aware of commercial sex trafficking or that she was subject to force, fraud or coercion — requirements under the law.
Rakoff said he’d try to have a decision by the end of the month.
Jane Doe’s lawyer David Boies argued that planes owned by Highbridge Capital, which in 2004 JPMorgan purchased a stake in, were used to transport girls. When people within the bank went to “high level people saying ‘we are supporting sex trafficking and we have to stop’,” top management said no and continued on, Boies said.
He rejected the bank’s claim it only provided routine banking services to Epstein.
“There is no doubt there was sex trafficking here,” he said. “There is no doubt they knew what they were doing at the time.”
Jane Doe also sued Deutsche Bank, which took on Epstein as a client after JPMorgan cut ties with him in 2013.
Lawyers for Deutsche Bank argued that Jane Doe had signed a settlement agreement that protected entities tied to Epstein from being sued thereafter. Sigrid McCawley, who is also representing Jane Doe, said the language in the agreement was clear and didn’t extend to financial institutions. The bank had an incentive to keep Epstein on because of the lucrative accounts he brought to it.
“This was a quid pro quo,” she said.
Staley emerged again as a key figure in the lawsuit. He held senior positions at JPMorgan, including as the head of the private bank, and had a “close and profound” friendship with Epstein. Emails Staley and Epstein exchanged, which were previously filed in the suit, revealed photos of young women, visits Staley made to Epstein’s home and talk of Disney Princesses.
On March 8 JPMorgan sued Staley, claiming he should be held liable for any damages awarded against bank. JPMorgan is also attempting to claw back more than $80 million in compensation it paid to Staley during his “faithless service” and period of disloyalty. Jane Doe had outlined in her complaint that a powerful financial executive used aggressive force to sexually assault her. In its third party complaint against Staley, JPMorgan said it believed that person was Staley.
A lawyer for Staley has previously denied any involvement in Epstein’s sex trafficking.
The case is USVI v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, 22-cv-10904-UA, US District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).
More stories like this are available on bloomberg.com
©2023 Bloomberg L.P.