Saving Grace
2 months ago
$JPM trouble, juggling the books.
JPMorgan Chase & Co. Agrees To Pay $920 Million in Connection with Schemes to Defraud Precious Metals and U.S. Treasuries Markets
JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPMorgan), a New York, New York-based global banking and financial services firm, has entered into a resolution with the Department of Justice to resolve criminal charges related to two distinct schemes to defraud: the first involving tens of thousands of episodes of unlawful trading in the markets for precious metals futures contracts, and the second involving thousands of episodes of unlawful trading in the markets for U.S. Treasury futures contracts and in the secondary (cash) market for U.S. Treasury notes and bonds.
JPMorgan entered into a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) in connection with a criminal information filed today in the District of Connecticut charging the company with two counts of wire fraud. Under the terms of the DPA, JPMorgan will pay over $920 million in a criminal monetary penalty, criminal disgorgement, and victim compensation, with the criminal monetary penalty credited against payments made to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) under a separate agreement with the CFTC being announced today and with part of the criminal disgorgement credited against payments made to the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) under a separate agreement with the SEC being announced today.
“For over eight years, traders on JP Morgan’s precious metals and U.S. Treasuries desks engaged in separate schemes to defraud other market participants that involved thousands of instances of unlawful trading meant to enhance profits and avoid losses,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Brian C. Rabbitt of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division. “Today’s resolution — which includes a significant criminal monetary penalty, compensation for victims, and requires JP Morgan to disgorge its unlawful gains — reflects the nature and seriousness of the bank’s offenses and represents a milestone in the department’s ongoing efforts to ensure the integrity of public markets critical to our financial system.”
“JPMorgan engaged in two separate years-long market manipulation schemes,” said U.S. Attorney John H. Durham of the District of Connecticut. “Not only will the company pay a substantial financial penalty and return money to victims, but this agreement requires JPMorgan to self-report violations of the federal anti-fraud laws and cooperate in any future criminal investigations. I thank the FBI for its dedication in investigating these deceptive trading practices and other sophisticated financial crimes.”
“For nearly a decade, a significant number of JP Morgan traders and sales personnel openly disregarded U.S. laws that serve to protect against illegal activity in the marketplace,” said Assistant Director in Charge William F. Sweeney Jr. of the FBI’s New York Field Office. “Today's deferred prosecution agreement, in which JP Morgan Chase and Co. agreed to pay nearly one billion dollars in penalties and victim compensation, is a stark reminder to others that allegations of this nature will be aggressively investigated and pursued.”
tw0122
3 months ago
Just last year, JPM salacious activities with sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein, to whom it doled out mountains of hard cash for more than a decade (which he then used to silence his underage victims and accomplices), generated news headlines around the world. The bank settled those charges last year, which had been brought in two civil lawsuits by his victims and by the Attorney General of the U.S. Virgin Islands, for a combined $365 million. (See JPMorgan’s Settlements Reach $365 Million Over Civil Claims It Banked Jeffrey Epstein’s Sex Trafficking of Minors; Criminal Charges Could Lie Ahead.)
On Thursday of last week, two of JPMorgan Chase Bank’s federal regulators fined the riskiest bank in the United States $348 million dollars for engaging in “unsafe and unsound banking practices” for failing to supervise “billions” of trades on at least 30 global trading venues.
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) fined JPMorgan Chase Bank $250 million while the Federal Reserve fined the bank $98.2 million. The OCC said the misconduct occurred since at least 2019. The Fed said the bank had engaged in the misconduct over the span of nine years, from 2014 to 2023.
The key outrage embedded in these charges – that mainstream media failed to point out in its coverage last week – is that this “trading” activity did not occur at the registered brokerage firm of JPMorgan, which has properly licensed traders and trading supervisors. It occurred at the federally-insured bank, which is not allowed to have licensed traders – because casino banking brings on bank runs, bank panics and giant scandals that undermine Americans’ confidence in federally-insured banks.
Under Jamie Dimon at the helm of this federally-insured bank, as both Chairman and CEO, JPMorgan Chase Bank has turned giant scandals into an art form. Its rap sheet reads like that of an organized crime family and includes an unprecedented five criminal felony charges.
Adding to the outrage over the mild slap on the wrist from these two regulators last week is that this federally-insured bank was previously charged with engaging in unsafe and unsound banking activities when it used depositors’ money from its federally-insured bank to engage in massive high-risk credit derivative trades in London in 2012 and lost $6.2 billion of depositors’ money. The case became infamously known as the London Whale scandal.
The OCC wrote as follows in its settlement document covering the London Whale matter in 2013:
“The credit derivatives trading activity constituted recklessly unsafe and unsound practices, was part of a pattern of misconduct and resulted in more than minimal loss, all within the meaning of 12 U.S.C. § 1818(i)(2)(B)”; and “The Bank failed to ensure that significant information related to the credit derivatives trading strategy and deficiencies identified in risk management systems and controls was provided in a timely and appropriate manner to OCC examiners.”
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) also settled charges with the bank in the London Whale matter. The SEC focused on JPMorgan’s ineffective internal controls and failure to keep the Audit Committee of its Board informed in a timely manner as required under its own rules and under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. The SEC also found the company violated securities laws by filing false information with the SEC: “As a result of its failure to maintain effective internal control over financial reporting as of March 31, 2012, and disclosure controls and procedures, and as a result of its filing of inaccurate reports with the Commission (specifically, the Form 8-K filed on April 13, 2012, and the Form 10-Q filed on May 10, 2012), JPMorgan violated Sections 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A), and 13(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act and Rules 13a-11, 13a-13, and 13a-15 there under,” the SEC said in its settlement document.
At the time of the London Whale scandal, a woman named Ina Drew was in charge of the unit of the federally-insured bank that oversaw the derivatives trading in London. That unit of the bank was called the Chief Investment Office. (That unit was created after Jamie Dimon took the helm at the bank.)
Ina Drew testified about the matter before the U.S. Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations on March 15, 2013. Drew told the hearing panel that beginning in 1999, she “oversaw the management of the Company’s core investment securities portfolio, the foreign-exchange hedging portfolio, the mortgage servicing rights (MSR) hedging book, and a series of other investment and hedging portfolios based in London, Hong Kong and other foreign cities.”
Drew told the Senate Subcommittee that the investment securities portfolio exceeded $500 billion during 2008 and 2009 and as of the first quarter of 2012 was $350 billion. But during the 13 years that Drew supervised massive amounts of securities trading, she had neither a securities license nor a principal’s license to supervise others who were trading securities.
At the time, we asked numerous Wall Street regulators to explain how this is possible at Wall Street mega banks. One regulator who spoke on background only told us that Drew could not hold a securities license because she worked for the federally-insured bank, not its broker-dealer (a/k/a brokerage firm). Only employees of broker-dealers are allowed to hold securities licenses. But apparently, not having a securities license does not stop one from supervising a $500 billion portfolio of securities that are, most assuredly, traded by someone.
It is a long-held requirement by U.S. securities regulators that if you are going to supervise persons holding a securities license, you must also hold the appropriate securities licenses yourself. Drew, without a license, was supervising traders in London who were registered with the Financial Services Authority (now Financial Conduct Authority).
In its 10-K (annual report) filing in February with the SEC, JPMorgan Chase indicated there is a third unnamed regulator that is currently investigating these billions of unsupervised trades. The bank said it was “also in advanced negotiations with a third U.S. regulator, but there is no assurance that such discussions will result in a resolution.”
That third regulator should closely examine what is going on in JPMorgan’s own Dark Pools, where the bank is preposterously allowed to trade large amounts of its own bank stock in its own Dark Pools. (See chart below as an example of what went on in the week of October 23, 2023.) Dark Pools are thinly regulated trading platforms inside the mega banks on Wall Street, and elsewhere, which lack the transparency of stock exchanges.
tw0122
3 months ago
Federal banking oversight agencies are in agreement: U.S. banks are facing a potential tsunami of problems with commercial real estate loans in the office space sector.
Last June 1, the Office of Financial Research (OFR), (the agency created under the Dodd-Frank financial reform legislation of 2010 to warn about financial stability risks), explained why the vacancy rate in office buildings is in dramatic contrast to the actual occupancy rate, and thus bodes poorly for the future demand for renewing office leases. OFR writes as follows:
“The health of the CRE [Commercial Real Estate] office sector is not only measured by the amount of space leased and rent paid today, but also by how much space will be required in the future. In addition to space available for sublease, we can estimate the amount of space currently occupied by employees by measuring card key swipes using the Kastle Back to Work Barometer.
“Unfortunately, future demand for office space appears weak. In addition to the growth of office space available for sublease, the amount of office space occupied by tenants remains stubbornly low…Although the current office vacancy rate is 16.4%, the average occupancy rate measured by the Kastle Back to Work Barometer is 49.8%. (Note that this represents a weekly average; daily occupancy varies). This implies a structural vacancy rate of 50.2%. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, office occupancy averaged close to 100%. This means that on average, firms are paying rent for twice as much space as their employees are currently using. If occupancy of existing office space remains low, current office tenants will probably renew their leases for less space—reducing office demand over time.”
The chart above accompanied the assessment. The same chart also made it into OFR’s 2023 annual report, which predicted office building demolitions were likely to occur for the less desirable office space. OFR wrote:
“High-quality space will likely outperform as the flight to quality continues, with high rents and low vacancy rates for best-in-class assets. However, second-generation space will struggle to backfill, with an increase in demolitions and conversions.”
A key entity that OFR keeps apprised of financial stability risks is the Financial Stability Oversight Council (F-SOC). It was also created under the Dodd-Frank financial reform legislation of 2010 to address the fact that financial regulators were wearing blinders when the 2008 financial crisis on Wall Street left the U.S. economy in tatters, with millions of Americans losing their jobs and their homes to foreclosure from tricked-up mortgages. F-SOC is chaired by the sitting U.S. Treasury Secretary and includes every federal banking and securities regulator. F-SOC wrote the following in its 2023 annual report:
“Commercial real estate (CRE) loans totaled almost $6 trillion as of the second quarter of 2023, and CRE represents a significant portion of the assets of many financial institutions. Banks hold a significant market share of CRE loans at 50 percent, with the rest held by various financial institutions such as insurance companies, holders of commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS), and debt funds. CRE is the largest loan category among almost one-half of U.S. banks, and more than one-quarter of U.S. banks have CRE loan portfolios that are large relative to the capital they hold.”
And this:
“The prices of office properties have deteriorated much more than those of other major property types in recent quarters, with an index of office property prices more than 30 percent below its pre-pandemic level as of September 2023.”
There is widespread agreement among federal banking regulators that commercial real estate in the office sector is a serious financial risk to banks. However, there is divergent opinion among two key regulators as to whether this risk is at the smaller banks or includes the largest banks — which pose an exponentially greater threat to financial stability.
On March 7, Fed Chair Jerome Powell appeared before the Senate Banking Committee to deliver his Semiannual Monetary Policy Report. In the Q&A that followed, Senator Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV) raised the question with Powell about troubled real estate loans as a financial risk to banks.
Powell played down the real estate threat at the largest banks, stating: “There will be bank failures, but this is not the big banks. If you look at the very big banks, this is not a first order issue for any of the very large banks. It’s more smaller and medium size banks that have these issues.”
Powell might have his own agenda in playing down the risks to the mega banks on Wall Street. According to Senator Elizabeth Warren, who also sits on the Senate Banking Committee, Powell is leading the charge behind the scenes to overturn federal regulators’ proposal to require the largest banks to hold larger amounts of capital to prevent a replay of the taxpayer and Fed bailouts of these mega banks that occurred in 2008.
On the same day that Powell was testifying before the Senate Banking Committee, the Chair of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), Martin Gruenberg, was holding a press conference to release the FDIC’s latest quarterly “Banking Profile.” Gruenberg boldly revealed a serious real estate problem inside the largest banks, stating the following: (Go to 5 minutes and 12 seconds at this link.)
GRUENBERG: “The increase in noncurrent loan balances was greatest among CRE [Commercial Real Estate] loans and credit cards. Weak demand for office space has softened property values and higher interest rates are affecting credit quality and refinancing ability of office and other types of CRE loans. As a result, the noncurrent rate for nonowner occupied CRE loans is now at its highest level since first quarter of 2014, driven by portfolios at the largest banks.” (Bold emphasis added.)
According to the chart below and accompanying data provided in an Excel spreadsheet by the FDIC, past due loans on commercial real estate at the largest banks (those with more than $250 billion in assets) as of December 31 of last year are at 4.11 percent. That’s 1.66 percent higher than at the end of the fourth quarter of 2008 when banks were exploding all over Wall Street during the financial crisis. As the chart below indicates, commercial real estate problems quickly became a lot worse at the largest banks, with the past due rate reaching 7.97 by the end of the first quarter of 2010.
Past Due Loans on Commercial Real Estate
That 4.11 percent past due rate at the biggest banks on December 31, 2023 compares with a past due rate of 1.35 percent at banks with $10 billion to $250 billion in assets, according to the latest FDIC bank profile data. Banks with $1 billion to $10 billion in assets have a negligible past due rate of 0.64 percent.
According to a report at CommercialEdge, Central Business District (CBD) office buildings “have been hit the hardest by the changes.” They cite a Washington, D.C. 13-story building with ground-floor retail space that “sold for $18.2 million in 2023, down 70% from its 2017 price tag of $61.8 million.”
tw0122
3 months ago
Yesterday, American Banker released a report showing that five banks in the U.S. hold a combined half trillion dollars in commercial real estate (CRE) loans. It came as a big surprise to a lot of folks that the bank holding the largest amount of CRE loans is JPMorgan Chase – whose bank holding company is also exposed to $49 trillion in derivatives as of December 31, 2023 according to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. (See Table 14 at this link.)
JPMorgan Chase is already considered the riskiest bank in the U.S. according to its regulators.
American Banker reported the following CRE totals for the five banks: JPMorgan Chase, $173 billion; Wells Fargo, $139.65 billion; Bank of America, $82.8 billion; U.S. Bank, $55.66 billion; and PNC Bank, $48.89 billion.
Some of the same hubris and willful blindness that prevailed in the runup to the subprime mortgage crisis that blew up large financial institutions in 2008 is showing itself today in regard to commercial real estate loans at federally-insured banks.
On March 7, Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell testified before the Senate Banking Committee as part of his Semiannual Monetary Policy Report to Congress. During his testimony, Powell downplayed concerns about the impact of commercial real estate loans at the largest banks. Powell stated: “There will be bank failures, but this is not the big banks. If you look at the very big banks, this is not a first order issue for any of the very large banks. It’s more smaller and medium size banks that have these issues.”
If CRE is not a problem at the largest banks, that’s because both the banks and the Fed believe that the Fed will always spring to the rescue with an emergency bailout program. In fact, the Fed has already created just such a program that’s waiting in the wings. It’s called the Standing Repo Facility (SRF). It has a lending capacity of $500 billion and can lend to both the federally-insured bank and its trading unit (primary dealer) – thus giving the so-called “universal banks” on Wall Street two bites at the bailout apple.
For a look at just how quickly the Fed can sluice money to Wall Street mega banks with few questions asked by Congress, check out the chart below. It shows the Fed’s emergency money spigot to the mega banks in the last quarter of 2019 – for a financial emergency at the banks which has yet to be explained to the American people.
Fed's Repo Loans to Largest Borrowers, Q4 2019, Adjusted for Term of Loan
To grasp how radically things have changed since 2008 when former Goldman Sachs veteran-turned Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson took a 3-page document to Congress and demanded a $700 billion taxpayer bailout for the banks (Troubled Asset Relief Program, TARP), let the full meaning of the chart above sink in. The Fed can now funnel trillions of dollars in cumulative loans to mega banks on Wall Street, report the names of the banks and amounts borrowed two years later, and get a complete news blackout from mainstream media. (Wall Street On Parade was the only media outlet to chart the details and report the names of the banks that got the trillions of dollars in loans in 2019.)
Powell might have his own agenda in playing down the risks to the mega banks on Wall Street. According to Senator Elizabeth Warren, who sits on the Senate Banking Committee, Powell is leading the charge behind the scenes to overturn federal regulators’ proposal to require the largest banks to hold larger amounts of capital to prevent a replay of the 2008 financial crisis.
tw0122
4 months ago
Throughout last year’s scandalous headlines, the Chairman and CEO of JPMorgan Chase, Jamie Dimon, preposterously stuck to the story that he didn’t know the notorious Epstein was a client at the bank, from at least 1998 to 2013, and likely much longer.
The Boies law firm and another law firm involved in the Epstein victims’ case, Edwards Henderson Lehrman, received $87 million in legal fees from the $290 million settlement, plus more than $1 million in legal expenses.
Now we’re learning new details about what else WilmerHale and Dimon extracted from David Boies (in addition to a ton of documents remaining sealed or redacted) in exchange for that $87 million payday.
Earlier this month, David Boies filed a federal lawsuit against Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn, Epstein’s personal lawyer and accountant, respectively. There are two named plaintiffs who seek to become the class representatives in a class action against Indyke and Kahn: Danielle Bensky and Jane Doe 3.
Bensky’s allegations originate during the time-period in which JPMorgan Chase was funneling $40,000 to $80,000 a month in hard cash to Epstein so he could pay hush money to his victims and incentive cash to his recruiters of underage girls. But instead of Boies including what would be the very critical information against JPMorgan Chase that was obtained in discovery in last year’s cases, the bank’s name is not mentioned once in the 85-page court filing.
The heart of the case against Indyke and Kahn is that they were “personally essential to the Epstein Enterprise’s success—among other things, they helped structure Epstein’s bank accounts and cash withdrawals to give Epstein and his associates access to large amounts of cash in furtherance of sex trafficking.”
How a lawyer can prove this case without naming the bank that played a central role in the scheme from at least 1998 through 2013 is beyond our comprehension. Unless, of course, the strategy is to just grab another settlement.
Below is a sampling of the gut-wrenching charges that Boies made against JPMorgan Chase just last year in the victims’ case against the bank:
“To access the large amount of cash needed to maintain his active sexual abuse of young women, it was essential that the financial institution where he banked be complicit in his operation, and more specifically that Epstein bank at a financial institution that would allow him to constantly withdraw cash from his accounts without following anti-money laundering and reporting laws. To put it plainly, Epstein needed a bank that knew he was engaging in illegal activity and did not care, which Epstein had in JP Morgan.”
“Epstein’s aptitude as a sex-trafficker and appetite as a sexual abuser did not suffer because of his Florida incarceration in 2008. Even while he was in jail in Florida, Epstein brazenly continued to sexually abuse young girls and women from his work-release office.”
“At all relevant times, Epstein maintained numerous apartment units at 301 East 66th Street in New York City, where Epstein’s co-conspirators often stayed and which operated as stash houses where numerous victims were kept over the years.”
“JP Morgan knew of the 301 East 66th Street Epstein properties and knew that these units operated as victim stash houses.”
“In 2006, Jeffrey Epstein was arrested in Florida after state and federal law enforcement discovered that he had sexually abused more than 30 children in his Palm Beach, Florida mansion…As a consequence of the Florida investigation, Epstein pled guilty to two felonies, was permanently labeled a ‘Registered Sex Offender,’ and was jailed in 2008. Epstein also entered into a non-prosecution agreement with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida barring his prosecution (and prosecution of his known and unknown co-conspirators) for violations of the TVPA [Trafficking Victim Protection Act] and other sex offenses in Florida. When the U.S. Attorney’s Office entered into that non-prosecution agreement with Epstein, it had not received reports from JP Morgan about vast sums of cash that it was providing Epstein. Nor did JP Morgan provide any other assistance in the investigation.”
“JP Morgan chose not to cooperate with law enforcement and other investigations into Epstein’s sex trafficking, because it knew it would be exposed as assisting in Epstein’s scheme.”
“As Epstein’s criminal sex trafficking venture expanded, he needed more protection and support from JP Morgan. Through [Jes] Staley and others, Epstein became more deeply involved with JP Morgan, providing JP Morgan with more financial benefits. And, as a quid pro quo, JP Morgan allowed Epstein to transfer massive amounts of hush money to his victims and recruiters. JP Morgan allowed Epstein to withdraw hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash so that all the payments were not traceable (the most obvious red flag for any criminal enterprise).”
“…JP Morgan failed to file with the federal government the required SARs that financial institutions must file with the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (‘FinCEN’) whenever there is a suspected case of money laundering or fraud. Timely filing of these reports is required by the Bank Secrecy Act and related laws and regulations. These reports are tools that the federal government uses to detect and prosecute, among other illegal activities, sex trafficking in violation of the TVPA. While JP Morgan was providing Epstein vast sums of cash each year, it was required to timely file SARs about Epstein’s suspicious and unusual cash transactions. JP Morgan’s failure to timely file SARs about Epstein’s sex-trafficking venture, in spite of numerous red flags, was wrongful and purposeful.”
This is what passes for “justice” in the United States of America, circa 2024.
tw0122
4 months ago
Jamie Dimon Is Desperate to Pin the Jeffrey Epstein Scandal on Jes Staley; Bloomberg News Is Carrying His Water — Again
By Pam Martens and Russ Martens: February 16, 2024 ~
Jeffrey Epstein (left); Jamie Dimon (right).
Jeffrey Epstein (left); Jamie Dimon (right).
After hurling salacious allegations for months against Jes Staley in a federal lawsuit JPMorgan Chase had brought against its former executive, the bank decided last September to quietly settle the case without disclosing the terms.
The bank sued Staley after it had been sued by victims of sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein and after it had been sued in a separate lawsuit by the Attorney General of the U.S. Virgin Islands, where Epstein owned a private island compound that was a frequent venue of Epstein’s sex trafficking of minors. Lawyers for the U.S. Virgin Islands charged that JPMorgan Chase had “actively participated in Epstein’s sex-trafficking venture from 2006 until 2019.” (Both cases were settled last year by the bank, with it paying a whopping $290 million to the victims and $75 million to the U.S. Virgin Islands.)
The bank’s lawsuit against Staley appeared to be a damage control effort to redirect the media’s attention to Staley and away from the man he reported to – Jamie Dimon, the Chairman and CEO of JPMorgan Chase who has survived a breathtaking array of criminal charges against the bank while he has sat at its helm. (See JPMorgan’s Board Made Jamie Dimon a Billionaire as the Bank Rigged Markets, Laundered Money, and Admitted to Five Felony Counts.)
While evidence submitted to the court showed Staley was deeply involved with Epstein, the evidence is also overwhelming that more than a dozen other bank personnel, including top executives, facilitated Epstein’s ability to keep his sex trafficking of minors’ scheme alive.
A Memorandum of Law filed by the U.S. Virgin Islands made the following points:
“Even if participation requires active engagement…there is no genuine dispute that JPMorgan actively participated in Epstein’s sex-trafficking venture from 2006 until 2019. The Court found allegations that the Bank allowed Epstein to use its accounts to send dozens of payments to then-known co-conspirators [redacted] provided excessive and unusual amounts of cash to Epstein; and structured cash withdrawals so that those withdrawals would not appear suspicious ‘went well beyond merely providing their usual [banking] services to Jeffrey Epstein and his affiliated entities’ and were sufficient to allege active engagement.”
The U.S. Virgin Islands alerted the court to the unfathomable sums of hard cash that Epstein was able to take from the accounts he maintained at JPMorgan Chase without the bank filing the legally mandated Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN). The U.S. Virgin Islands tallied up the hard cash dispersals as follows:
“Between September 2003 and November 2013, or approximately ten years, JPMorgan handled more than $5 million in outgoing cash transactions for Epstein — ignoring its own policy discouraging large cash withdrawals….”
The U.S. Virgin Islands’ attorneys cite to internal emails at JPMorgan Chase showing that employees at the bank were aware of Epstein’s “[c]ash withdrawals … made in amounts for $40,000 to $80,000 several times a month” while also being aware that Epstein paid his underage sexual assault victims in cash.
On August 25 of last year, JPMorgan Chase filed a document with the court as part of a discovery demand showing that, in addition to Staley, 14 of its executives, private bankers and other staff had made visits to Epstein’s private residences. One of those employees, Justin Nelson, visited Epstein’s residences more times than Staley. Nelson was at Epstein’s Manhattan mansion – a key location of the sex trafficking operation – 12 times and one time at Epstein’s Zorro Ranch in New Mexico – an additional location of the sex trafficking ring. That’s a total of 13 visits to the residence of a sex trafficker. Staley’s visits to Epstein’s residences tally up to 11, according to JPMorgan’s chart. (See pages 3, 4 and 5 at this link.) Eight of Nelson’s visits to Epstein’s residences occurred after 2013, the year that the bank claims it fired Epstein as a client. Disbursements from Epstein accounts were occurring long after 2013 according to court documents, raising questions about just when, or if, Epstein was terminated as a client from the Private Bank or the bank’s brokerage unit, J.P. Morgan Securities. Nelson was dually employed at both units.
Notwithstanding this hard evidence of JPMorgan Chase’s culpability in the Epstein saga, on February 7 of this year – months after the bank had quietly settled its case against Staley and the matter had disappeared from news headlines – Bloomberg News inexplicably decided to put Staley and Epstein back in its headlines. (Paywall.) In an article written by Harry Wilson, Ava Benny-Morrison, and Jason Leopold, one sentence jumps out. It reads: “The bank, which through Staley served Epstein as a client….”
The bank’s own chart, linked above in the ninth paragraph, shows that the following 14 individuals, in addition to Staley, were making visits to Epstein’s private residences while employed at the bank:
Paul Barrett (Managing Director, Private Bank); Mary Casey (Managing Director, Private Bank); John Duffy (CEO, Private Bank); Mary Erdoes (CEO, Asset & Wealth Management); David Frame (Global Chief Executive, Private Bank); Christopher French (Managing Director, Private Bank); Joanna Jagoda (Assistant General Counsel, Legal); Jeffrey Matusow (Managing Director, Private Bank); Thomas McGraw (Managing Director, Private Bank); Paul Morris (Banker, Private Bank); Justin Nelson (Managing Director, Private Bank); Carolyn Reers, Managing Director, Private Bank); James von Moltke (job title not provided by the bank).
If Dimon is fearful of Staley providing evidence against the bank in the Epstein matter to the criminal division of the U.S. Department of Justice, it would have an incentive to continue to undermine Staley’s credibility in the press.
What was JPMorgan Chase’s incentive to keep such a clearly dangerous man as Epstein as a client? The U.S. Virgin Islands makes a very credible case that the bank was getting lots of profits – both from trading in Epstein’s own accounts as well as his referrals of rich clients to the bank. It tells the court in one filing:
“In 2003, Epstein was, by double, the top revenue generator in the Private Bank, and the source of Google co-founder Sergey Brin (‘one of the largest [relationships] in the Private Bank, of +$4BN’), Glenn Dubin (billionaire founder of Highbridge), and many other ultra-wealthy clients and connections, which would come to include Bill Gates, Leon Black, Larry Summers, the Sultan of Dubai, Prince Andrew, Ehud Barak, Thomas Pritzker, Lord Peter Mandelson, and Prime Minister Netanyahu.”
And what would be the incentive for Bloomberg News to carry water for Jamie Dimon?
Michael Bloomberg, the former Mayor of New York, is the majority owner of the publishing and data terminal empire that has, for years, published flattering articles about Jamie Dimon. In 2016, Michael Bloomberg even co-authored an opinion piece with Dimon. The same year, the New York Post reported that JPMorgan Chase was the second largest customer of Bloomberg’s data terminal business with 10,000 leases of Bloomberg’s terminals. At the time, the terminals cost around $21,000 each per lease, per year, or approximately $210 million being forked over by JPMorgan Chase to Michael Bloomberg’s company annually. Bloomberg’s data terminals are the cash cow of the company.
During JPMorgan Chase’s London Whale scandal in 2012 and 2013, where the bank gambled with bank depositors’ money in its federally-insured bank by making exotic derivative trades in London and losing at least $6.2 billion, Michael Bloomberg was Mayor of New York City. Instead of condemning this outrageous risk-taking with federally-insured deposits, Mike Bloomberg was quoted in the Wall Street Journal calling Dimon “a very smart, honest, great executive,” adding “The controls failed. He’ll look at that and fix it.” That statement appeared in May of 2012. The five felony counts brought by the Justice Department and admitted to by the bank, followed from 2014 to 2020.
Level up your trading with our powerful tools and real-time insights all in one place.
Lime Time
3 weeks ago
Agoura Guy
2 months ago
Monksdream
4 months ago
cottonmather
4 months ago
Hot Features
Premium
