JPMorgan’s Jamie Dimon sought for second interview in Jeffrey Epstein lawsuit
ft.com
ft.com
Beyond "get rich by going after the non-celebrities with deep pockets", I can't see any possible good coming out of this lawsuit.
> As part of the arrangement, Acosta agreed, despite a federal law to the contrary, that the deal would be kept from the victims. As a result, the non-prosecution agreement was sealed until after it was approved by the judge, thereby averting any chance that the girls — or anyone else — might show up in court and try to derail it. [1]
it's so blatant that 2/3rds of Acosta's wiki page covers the deal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Acosta
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Acosta#:~:text=The%2...
I've seen nothing specific about how JPMorgan should have divined Epstein's activities from what they knew. Another article said the senior JPMorgan exec. handling Epstein had asked Jeff to give career advice to his young daughter - hardly compatible with "of course the bank knew all about..." arguments.
Banks have been making fortunes, for ages, by handling the money of sleazy rich people. Compared to that, the sums involved here are barely a rounding error. And this little fuss certainly didn't interfere with JPMorgan scooping up (by some accounts) 90% of Silicon Valley Bank's customers, and much of SVB's top talent.