this post was submitted on 08 Sep 2025
189 points (99.5% liked)

news

144 readers
1275 users here now

A lightweight news hub to help decentralize the fediverse load: mirror and discuss headlines here so the giant instance communities aren’t a single choke-point.

Rules:

  1. Recent news articles only (past 30 days)
  2. Title must match the headline or neutrally describe the content
  3. Avoid duplicates & spam (search before posting; batch minor updates).
  4. Be civil; no hate or personal attacks.
  5. No link shorteners
  6. No entire article in the post body

founded 1 month ago
MODERATORS
dude
189
JPMorgan processed $1 billion for Jeffrey Epstein, kept him as client despite sex trafficking indictment: report (nypost.com)
submitted 3 weeks ago by dude to c/news
13 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] lurch@sh.itjust.works 32 points 3 weeks ago (5 children)

I know this is an extreme case, but IMO it's not the banks job to punish criminals. They should continue business as usual, in case the person was wrongfully convicted. It's the governments job to freeze or seize assets. In this particular case this may feel uncomfortable, but you wouldn't want the bank to pro-actively, maybe even automatically freeze your account when you forget to pay a parking ticket or so, because this is where this is going.

[–] Skullgrid@lemmy.world 23 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I know this is an extreme case, but IMO it’s not the banks job to punish criminals.

and yet mastercard etc are capable of harassing valve.

[–] zergtoshi@lemmy.world 13 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

and yet mastercard etc are capable of harassing valve.

I don't know whether it's your intention, but that's an argument in favour of the comment you replied to.

[–] Skullgrid@lemmy.world 10 points 3 weeks ago

I'm just mad that the excuse for Epstein , Trump et al getting no reprimand is this, but when it comes to games, suddenly this doesn't apply anymore.

[–] ultranaut@lemmy.world 15 points 3 weeks ago

This definitely wasn't business as usual. Epstein was flagged repeatedly for engaging in cash withdrawal patterns that suggested illegal activities and bank execs chose to continue allowing those withdrawals. Additionally, if your banker is also consulting you on business decision about the bank, you are not just a regular bank customer. It is clear from the article that JP Morgan executives knew Epstein and actively facilitated his criminal enterprise.

[–] bitwize01@reddthat.com 12 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

From the (very long) NYT article that dropped today about this:

  • Epstein was likely money laundering for quite some time, Bank ignored red flags because the penalties would almost certainly be less than the profits from moving that much money around. This is the big reason why he didn't get cut loose. I'm sure JPM was taking a cut on all the transfers of non-cash deposits (securities, etc) and also making money on the balance of accounts as they moved through their system (being laundered). Getting to trade on $1B while it's being disbursed is a lot of why these "market makers" are so powerful. Critically, they're supposed to be reporting on large cash withdrawls - if you or I pulled out $180k in a year in physical cash the feds would be coming by to see what was going on.
  • Despite the potential bad optics of bankrolling a pedophile money launderer, They continued lending & consulting him because he got them add'l whale clients, including the CEO of Google (4B+ Customer) and business with highly profitable hedge funds
  • When things became untenable (tried + convicted sex offender, serving 18 months in FLA) the senior exec who had been covering for him (and profiting from his referrals and money laundering) lobbied to keep him because he, himself, had been entrapped in Epstein's sex trafficking operation (as a customer, obv).
  • Once word of one of their seniors being Epstein's pal became public JPM cut everyone loose. This is pretty routine behavior by wall street tbh. Crime until you're caught.

Obviously trustworthy banks don't enable money laundering, so he should really have been dropped in the 90's/00's. Certainly his '11 conviction should have been the end of it. Incarcerated white-collar criminals usually lose big after the first conviction because the revenue stream has dried up and the justice-averting lawyers can't be paid. In this case, his contacts kept the money moving because they were embroiled in the same schemes.

[–] Zizzy@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Yeah i have to agree, banks shouldn't even have the option to just decide to process the money.

[–] resipsaloquitur@lemmy.world 4 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Business should not facilitate crime. It’s illegal, as well as immoral.

[–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Private companies should not be independent judges with enforcement powers.

[–] resipsaloquitur@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago

They have no problem censoring legal NSFW content. But when it comes to actual crimes, laissez faire.

[–] witheyeandclaw@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 3 weeks ago

They're not independent judges, they have guidelines and tools for illegal practices. They ignore those for rich friends. They ignore them for people that pay them a lot, but they still get in trouble for facilitating money laundering every now and again when those people aren't connected enough.

[–] Rhaedas@fedia.io 0 points 3 weeks ago

Agreed, this is blame shifting. Just like blaming companies for doing things for profit that are not regulated well enough, or enforced/fined enough.