Hush Money or Justice? JPMorgan’s Epstein Settlement Raises Concerns

JPMorgan’s Dirty Dealings: The Epstein Settlement and Its Implications

In a calculated move to preserve its tarnished reputation, JPMorgan Chase announced a settlement with one of the victims of the paedophile and sexual predator, Jeffrey Epstein.

This carefully orchestrated agreement aims to put on a facade of justice while leaving many unanswered questions and potential accomplices unscathed.

The unnamed victim, referred to as Jane Doe 1, had filed a lawsuit alleging that JPMorgan Chase knowingly benefited from and facilitated Epstein’s heinous sex trafficking operation. While the settlement is touted as being in the best interests of all parties, one cannot help but question the true motives behind such an agreement.

By reaching a settlement, JPMorgan Chase conveniently avoids a protracted legal battle that could further expose its complicity in Epstein’s crimes. It presents itself as a responsible corporate entity, concerned about the survivors and their well-being. However, this settlement serves as nothing more than a superficial gesture that falls short of true accountability.

The terms of the settlement remain undisclosed, leaving the public in the dark about the financial repercussions for JPMorgan Chase. This lack of transparency raises doubts about the sincerity of the bank’s commitment to justice. It also casts a shadow of doubt on the actual extent of its involvement in Epstein’s illicit activities.

It is important to note that this settlement does not absolve JPMorgan Chase from its ongoing legal battles. The litigation with the U.S. Virgin Islands, where Epstein owned a private island used for his despicable acts, continues unabated. Additionally, the bank’s claims against former executive Jes Staley, who maintained a close friendship with Epstein, remain active.

JPMorgan Chase’s attempts to distance itself from Epstein are feeble at best. The bank argues that Staley should bear the brunt of any civil liability that may arise from the Epstein case, conveniently shifting blame onto an individual. Furthermore, the bank is aggressively seeking to reclaim more than $80 million in pay from the former executive, a move that appears more as a desperate attempt to save face rather than genuine accountability.

The Epstein Connection: JP Morgan’s Settlement Leaves Questions Unanswered

This settlement comes on the heels of Deutsche Bank’s $75 million settlement with Epstein victims. It raises questions about the potential ripple effect and legal ramifications for other associates and friends of Epstein.

Deutsche Bank AG (DBKGn.DE) agreed to pay $75 million to settle a lawsuit by women who say they were abused by the late financier Jeffrey Epstein and accused the German bank of facilitating his sex trafficking.

The accord resolves a proposed class action in Manhattan federal court, and was confirmed by the accusers’ lawyers late on Wednesday.

Deutsche Bank was accused of missing red flags in Epstein’s accounts that he was engaged in wrongdoing.

Deutsche Bank spokesman Dylan Riddle declined to discuss the accord, but the bank has acknowledged error in making Epstein a client.

The Mandelson connection.

One figure worth examining is Lord Peter Mandelson, a powerful British politician and member of Epstein’s network.

This lawsuit has achieved a modicum of justice for Jeffrey Epstein’s victims, and those who profited from their association with Epstein must now feel a sense of unease.

The pertinent question arises: will other associates and acquaintances of Jeffrey Epstein face lawsuits in relation to his heinous crimes?

We can direct our attention to Lord Peter Mandelson, not only a friend of Jeffrey Epstein and a fellow member of the Trilateral Commission. Incidentally, Mandelson also sat on the Board of Trustees of Deutsche Bank‘s Alfred Herrhausen Gesellschaft

Allegedly, Lord Peter Mandelson while Labour Business Secretary in 2009 made a phone call to Epstein while he was incarcerated, seeking a favour.

According to the documentary “Dispatches: The Prince and the Paedophile,” Mandelson, who was then one of the most powerful British politicians and confidant to Tony Blair, as he is now to Labour leader, Sir Keir Starmer. Had the audacity to reach out to Epstein while the latter was in jail for sex crimes.

The purpose of the call, as claimed by the documentary, was to arrange a meeting with the head of JP Morgan Bank, Jamie Damon.

During the conversation, Mandelson sought Epstein’s assistance in setting up a meeting with Jamie Dimon, the influential banker at JP Morgan. Startlingly, the sex offender referred to Mandelson by a nickname, “Petie.” A whistleblower interviewed by ‘Dispatches’ expressed astonishment at a British cabinet minister, who at the time was arguably one of the most powerful figures after the Prime Minister, contacting Epstein in jail to secure an appointment with a prominent New York banker.

The question lingers: how can Lord Mandelson’s call to a convicted child abuser behind bars be justified and does the scrutiny extend to Epstein’s roster of clients, as well?

Questions of his association continue to go unanswered along with Mandelson, Starmer and Epstine’s membership of the Trilateral Commission.

The Shadow of Complicity

As for Epstein’s other connections, they extended far and wide, encompassing individuals such as Bill Gates, Prince Andrew, Bill Clinton, and Donald Trump. The list of his high-powered associates demands a thorough examination to ensure that no stone is left unturned in the pursuit of justice. The settlement between JPMorgan Chase and Jane Doe 1 may serve as a reminder of the pervasive power dynamics that shielded Epstein and allowed him to perpetrate his crimes with impunity.

The settlement with JPMorgan Chase is merely a small step towards justice for his victims. It is imperative that the entire client list associated with Epstein is thoroughly scrutinized, leaving no stone unturned in the pursuit of truth and accountability.

As the survivors of Epstein’s heinous abuse seek closure and justice, it is crucial to recognise that the settlement offered by JPMorgan Chase is a mere Band-Aid on a much deeper wound.

The true extent of not only this bank’s involvement but the complicity of other powerful individuals must be fully exposed. The survivors deserve nothing less than the unearthing of every dark secret and the prosecution of every guilty party involved. Anything short of that would be a betrayal of justice and a perpetuation of the same system that allowed Epstein to thrive for so long.