You must log in or register to comment.

NachoNinja19 t1_ixuve34 wrote

Are they saying the banks were aware of what Epstein was doing with his money? If anyone should be sued it’s the state of Florida. They knew what he was doing and made back room deals to reduce the charges and fake a prison sentence and allowed it to continue.


Vic_Hedges t1_ixvjg59 wrote

Seriously. Stating lenders are responsible for the actions of those they lend money too would pretty much end capitalism.

Which I understand that the Reddit mob would probably applaud, but most people would recognize as a bit of problem.


CatProgrammer t1_ixvrkxa wrote

Banks are not allowed to engage in money laundering, so yes, to some degree lenders are in fact responsible for those they lend money to. In fact, being a money mule is illegal even if you don't know you're doing it, so if a bank is facilitating illegal activity even without knowing it it can in fact be held responsible for it. Doesn't mean it will, of course, but it could be.


BigBradWolf77 t1_iy0wsuu wrote

Laws are for the poors exclusively and always have been.


TransposingJons t1_ixvo2nn wrote

Dude, the entire C-suite of Deutsche Bank and JP Morgan were clients of Epstein, and likely took part in the murders of the underage girls out at sea.

Jeffrey Epstein didn't kill himself.


Devmoi t1_ixx6ngj wrote

Murders of underaged girls? Is this an actual fact? Just wondering where the articles are stating this or if it’s a conspiracy theory, etc.


MGD109 t1_ixxh505 wrote

Considering it would probably have gotten a lot more publicity with everything else, I'm going to assume its a conspiracy theory.


BigBradWolf77 t1_iy0wz5k wrote

lots of conspiracy facts flying around these days, now that you mention it...


MGD109 t1_iy0x8q9 wrote

Well I suppose that's true. Still it feels like something like this wouldn't need to be something you find out from an anonymous source on reddit.


BigBradWolf77 t1_iy3opv0 wrote

facts being suppressed is nothing new imho...


MGD109 t1_iy3p3j4 wrote

Sure that's nothing new, but this case has been in the media spot light for three years at this point.

If the only claim about it comes from an anonymous post on reddit with no source or much information, then its probably a good sign its not actually true.


MGD109 t1_ixvz8bx wrote

>Jeffrey Epstein didn't kill himself.

Reading through everything, he probably did.

Nearly everything they've been able to claim was suspicious turned out to have pretty mundane explanations. Most along the lines that underfunded American prisons are utterly awful.


Plenor t1_ixwn67g wrote

Is that meme finally going away? A meme is all it ever was.


MGD109 t1_ixxe12x wrote

I think so. And your right its more a meme than anything else.


johnn48 t1_ixxltlz wrote

Amazing isn’t it that Ghislaine Maxwell is serving time for all of Jeffrey’s crimes, yet the murder of underage girls was never brought up. Not one charge related to harm other than providing 4 women for sex that were underage at the time.


MGD109 t1_iy1559l wrote

>Amazing isn’t it that Ghislaine Maxwell is serving time for all of Jeffrey’s crimes

I mean technically she's serving for her's, she was the one who made sure his ring actually ran and regularly abused the women as well.

But yeah, its hard to believe that wouldn't have come up at some point.


together_we_build t1_ixyv4ng wrote

Can you provide evidence for your claim that the C-suite of JP Morgan and Deutsche Bank were clients of Epstein and killed girls at sea?


Vic_Hedges t1_ixx7jxx wrote

That’s some pretty bold claims. Is there strong evidence to back it up?


Cloacation t1_ixwkcdx wrote

It’s like suing the usps for drug trafficking.


ARKenneKRA t1_ixwutw0 wrote

Does the USPS have ZERO obligation to ensure laws are being followed by the citizens using the service?

No. Of course they have such obligation.


Great_Hamster t1_ixx5c9k wrote

There's a big difference between having an obligation and having a tortable obligation.


FappyChan t1_iy2iwp0 wrote

Im suing Reddit because people made racist comments towards me and they didnt delete the comment. Reddit allows hate crimes. /s


Devmoi t1_ixx709v wrote

To be fair, I’m sure UPS has thorough measures to make sure drug trafficking is not happening through their services knowingly. It’s totally different if the banking executives were in on it and knew Epstein was using funds to operate this kind of business. In fact, I’m pretty sure that could lead to prosecution if there is substantial evidence.


Apart-Link-8449 t1_ixwwbtz wrote

L take.

Money laundering is absolutely prosecuted when it is detected, a situation where lenders are held accountable for the actions of those they lend money to.


RonaldWoodstock t1_ixvp85w wrote

The journey from holding corporations and executives accountable for enabling high level clients to sex traffic children to ending capitalism seems very purposefully worded…


BabySuperfreak t1_ixvrm2z wrote

Accountability wouldn't end capitalism, it would save it. Capitalism and free trade are slowly dying from mass corruption.

Problem is, the pillars of the current system are so rotted out that holding them accountable now would hurt everyone. We've gone septic and our only options are "let it die" or "accept that this is gonna HURT".


cromwest t1_ixwvx7g wrote

Capitalism can't survive without corruption. Taking the excess of labor is corrupt. If everyone acted in their rational self interest, the whole system would implode immediately.


Great_Hamster t1_ixx5lls wrote

If everyone acted in their shortest-term self-interest, which is I think what you're describing, lots of stuff would implode.


lewger t1_ixwwpsi wrote

They are saying the banks have deep pockets and will probably settle to minimise exposure to their dealings with a paedophile/ sex trafficker


BigBradWolf77 t1_iy0x94m wrote

because they would rather pay a pittance and admit no guilt than confess the truth of their crimes and go to prison for it

and the system as it stands currently will allow them to do it


BruisedPurple t1_ixz73wz wrote

No I think they are stating " that is where the money is " , we should get some


BeKind_BeTheChange t1_ixutw6p wrote

I'm fairly certain we can drop the "alleged" regarding the sex trafficking operation. Maxwell has been convicted and Epstein would have been convicted had he not been murdered.

Edit- "Allegedly" murdered? Nah, they killed him.


fastal_12147 t1_ixuxpgc wrote

I think allegedly refers to the banks' role in the trafficking operation, not Epstein


BeKind_BeTheChange t1_ixuzbnt wrote

That's not how I read the sentence. "...the late financier's alleged sex trafficking operation..."


submittedanonymously t1_ixvgn7g wrote

Solve… what psh order did do anything ever word to??

>!Psh… what did word order ever do to solve anything??!<

(I had a lot more fun writing this than I thought I was going to have.)


strwbryshrtck521 t1_ixv2tms wrote

In journalism, you have to say "allegedly" if there is no conviction. Which there wasn't, as he died before trial, and nobody was implicated in his (alleged) murder.


BeKind_BeTheChange t1_ixv3w79 wrote

Yeah, I get it. But I'm not a journalist and those banks benefitted from their relationship with the murdered sex-trafficker, Jeffrey Epstein.

Come at me, bro. ;-)


dkran t1_ixvo5gv wrote

Virginia Giuffries settled, without making an announcement as to how much. She was the most steadfast accuser of Epstein and she STFU. Not saying he didn’t do horrible things, but apparently moral obligation goes out the window when you get an undisclosed amount of money.


PhallusAran t1_ixvxud7 wrote

What was the timeline for this relative to Epstein's alleged murder? (I am seriously asking) could intimidation play a role?


MGD109 t1_ixvyt9z wrote

It happened three years afterwards, it had nothing to do with Epstein's death.

Andrew Winsor's lawyers just offered her enough money to agree cause he was clearly going to lose.


dkran t1_ixvyrov wrote

Sorry, I misspoke. Prince Andrew paid her off around March 8, 2022. I’m not victim blaming here, but this circle deserves the worst that can come at them. It’s unfortunate credible victims flip.


MGD109 t1_ixw06gt wrote

>It’s unfortunate credible victims flip.

She's never flipped. She's still carrying on telling everyone who will listen that he raped her.

Her accepting the money out of court doesn't mean she got a hush payment.


MGD109 t1_ixvz1vv wrote

It was a civil trial, not a criminal one.

The only outcome if she had won, was that she got the money.

Why the heck shouldn't she accept the payment if they were offering her what she was going to win in damages?

Why is that so hard to understand? People act like she took a bribe.


dkran t1_ixvzljd wrote

A civil trial can become criminal if criminal wrongdoing can be proved within statute of limitations. He was ordered to testify.


MGD109 t1_ixvzrst wrote

Sure it can. But that was never going to happen in this particular trial. Everyone involved knew that from the start, including Virginia Giuffries.

Even if Andrew had testified it wouldn't have mattered, it not being a criminal trial their is no chance of perjury charges even if he was proven to be lying.

Unfortunately everything they could prove he'd done, simply wasn't illegal either in New York or in Britain.


zuzg t1_ixuxa0b wrote

>Epstein killed himself in his cell at the Metropolitan Correctional Center on Aug. 10, 2019, while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges. His longtime associate, British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell, was sentenced to 20 years in prison for helping to recruit and groom underage girls over the course of at least a decade, filing an appeal in July. > >In the lawsuits filed Thursday, the plaintiffs accuse the banks of "providing the requisite financial support for the continued operation of Epstein’s international sex trafficking organization" in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), a U.S. law used to target illegal conspiracies that originally was designed to target organized crime



MGD109 t1_ixvz9p0 wrote

Eh, he probably did.

After three years no one's been able to find any real evidence to suggest he didn't and most of the original evidence that is repeated turned out to be untrue.


Chippopotanuse t1_ixw1c38 wrote

So there was a film of his cell? (Camera was reported broken)

And the guards were awake and watching him? (They testified they were asleep)

And Bill Barr never visited the prison? (He did).


MGD109 t1_ixw3sit wrote

>So there was a film of his cell? (Camera was reported broken)

No. Their were no cameras in his cell or any of the cells, cause the prison doesn't put cameras in the cells. There were cameras outside in the hallway. Three of them turned out to be broken (one was technically working, but the footage was in such poor quality it was deemed effectively useless), but the rest were fine (including the one's watching the enterance), and the footage of all of them has been examined.

Likewise in the 2015 review of the prison, it was discovered that up 15% of the cameras throughout the prison were not working and a large number of other were in poor quality, and said prison has since been shut down for repairs as the conditions inside have become to intolerable even for an American prison.

The idea that the film of him miraculously broke right before he died was a joke that started on twitter.

>And the guards were awake and watching him? (They testified they were asleep)

Nope. They were supposed to check in on him every thirty minutes as he had recently been taken off suicide watch (due to him trying to slit his own throat). But cause they were working 20 hour shifts all week for minimum wage, they decided to take a nap rather than babysit a rich paedophile.

They then faked the logs after they found he died to try to get the heat off. But the camera's footage confirmed they lied so they were caught, admitted to falsifying the logs and they've since been fired.

>And Bill Barr never visited the prison? (He did).

Never heard about that one, so I can't comment. If he did, then I guess there is perhaps one thing suspicious that hasn't turned out to be untrue, but that's pretty much it.


mrmopper0 t1_ixxc0wr wrote

Frankly this all seems like evidence he didnt. Gross negligence on this level doesn't happen by chance.


MGD109 t1_ixxec4b wrote

Yeah, I'd recommend reading a few reports of what goes on in other prisons in America and then tell me what you think about gross negligence in underfunded, uncaring institutions.


AfterEpilogue t1_ixw9pm9 wrote

Right because everyone knows the ol three year rule, if you don't find evidence in three years it didn't happen!! /s


MGD109 t1_ixxdylf wrote

Nah there is no rule. It doesn't matter when the evidence comes out.

I'm just saying after all this time, with literally the whole world focused on this case, no one's found anything. Doesn't that imply there isn't anything to find?


AfterEpilogue t1_ixxltv7 wrote

That implied that the powerful people who killed someone to keep their secrets are very good at keeping it a secret.


MGD109 t1_ixxmni8 wrote

Well its Occam's razor now isn't it?

There are two possibilities: either we assume these people are so powerful and competent that they were able to pull off the nigh impossible of managing to break into a federal prison, past numerous guards, cameras and computer controlled doors into the most restricted area, and kill a grown man in a way that left no marks anywhere on his body that weren't inconsistent with him hanging himself, and then manage to get out without leaving any evidence whatsoever they were there, after doing all of this on the mere possibility that Epstein would blab despite up to this point showing no signs of it whatsoever (and that if he did, he'd also somehow be able to prove it).

Or we assume no one broke in, and the old narcissistic paedophile who had spent the last forty years living like a king and was now stuck in an abysmal prison, knowing he had nothing to look forward to but a miserable life inside with everyone knowing he was an utter failure, who'd tried to kill themselves a mere month previously and only just gotten off suicide watch, decided he'd rather take the cowards way out.

Well when you lay it all out, you have to admit one sounds a lot more plausible, doesn't it?


Schrecht t1_ixuv9nm wrote

Deutsche, that's the bank which funded the former president, isn't it?


Relictorum t1_ixuziey wrote

noddles, after a big influx of cash from russian investors.


Psyman2 t1_ixv2xdp wrote

They're notorious for Russian ties and their money laundering operations. Friend of me works for a European bank (not going to dox him) and he says they are fully aware of certain "interesting" payments being processed.


NachoNinja19 t1_ixv35qe wrote

It will be thrown out. Unless they have emails or people to testify that they new what he was doing I don’t see how it could move forward. Plus it would open up banks to be sued for any Criminal activity by their clients. Bill cosby’s banks, Harvey Weinstein’s banks, Bernie Madoff’s banks, etc.


Chippopotanuse t1_ixw1wkv wrote

Banks that serve as custodians for funds get sued ALL THE DAMN TIME if they fail to implement anti-money laundering “know your customer rules.” They aren’t being sued because their customers are violent criminals or rapists. They are being sued because they are the custodian of a financial fraudster.

So, for instance, Madoff’s banks WERE sued:

Cosby and Weinstein are rapists. They weren’t laundering money. So their banks weren’t sued.


NachoNinja19 t1_ixwlyoo wrote

I can see how madoffs banks could be held somewhat responsible given that he was in finance and laundering Ill gotten gains for his personal use. And I see that Chase had to pay $1.7Billion to victims but Epstein wasn’t charged with money laundering. I know he should be in jail for his own financial schemes in the past. He was charged with sex trafficking. How are banks supposed to know a client is sex trafficking? They’d have to hire PIs to follow all their clients looking for illegal activity.


Chippopotanuse t1_ixwpmsj wrote

It’s not the sex trafficking. You are hung up on that. It’s the financial transactions. It falls under anti-money laundering (AML) “know your customer” rules that banks MUST follow.

Let’s say I have an account at chase as my clearing/client funds account. And a bank I’m a solo/small shop lawyer or a banker.

If all of my “clients” I have are all Swiss bank accounts and cayman accounts and I’m sending and receiving tens of millions of dollars…it sets of various “know your customer” red flags. And the custodial bank (Chase) should be observant of them.

Epstein was engaging in financial transactions that were unexplained by his purported “financial advisory” business.

That’s what these types of suits are about. That the custodial bank missed AML red flags.

Here are several common AML red flag indicators, and note how NONE of them talk about rape or trafficking. It’s all about the financial aspects of the transactions:

  1. Secretive new clients who avoid personal contact

Firms should have Know Your Customer (KYC) and customer due diligence (CDD) procedures in place when onboarding new clients. If a customer refuses to answer questions about themselves, firms should consider whether this is suspicious, especially if they have criminal associations, or know an unusual amount about the money laundering process.

  1. Unusual transactions

Customers trying to launder funds may carry out unusual transactions. Firms should look out for activity that is inconsistent with their expected behavior, such as large cash payments, unexplained payments from a third party, or use of multiple or foreign accounts. These are all AML red flags.

  1. Unusual source of funds

Transactions involving large amounts of cash or private funding could indicate money laundering, and if cash deposits or complex crypto assets are involved, identifying the source can be difficult.

  1. Transaction has unusual features

The size, nature or frequency of transactions, or repetitive instructions involving common features, are all AML red flags. Firms should be particularly alert if a transaction appears unusual for the customer’s profile, or if there is unexplained urgency.

  1. Geographic concerns

If a firm is not local to the customer, why are they using it? Unexplained connections with – and movement of money between – jurisdictions should also raise suspicions.

  1. Politically exposed persons

Individuals – and their family and associates – in high positions are more vulnerable to corruption and could pose a higher risk of money laundering for quid-pro-quo favors or kickbacks. While no standardized global definition exists, PEPs typically include heads of state, senior politicians or government officials, judicial or military officials, senior executives of state-owned corporations, or important political party officials.

  1. Ultimate beneficial ownership is unclear

Ultimate beneficial owners are the people who ultimately own or manage a company. Complex ownership structures, or the use of shell companies, could be an attempt to disguise criminal activities and carry out financial crime.

  1. Jurisdiction risk

Some countries or jurisdictions have high levels of corruption, unstable governments, or are known as money laundering havens. They could also have inadequate AML/CFT regulatory and judicial frameworks, or be subject to economic sanctions. Transactions that involve these countries should be carefully monitored as AML red flags.

  1. Sanctions exposure

It is important that firms review relevant international sanctions lists to ensure that customers are not sanctioned themselves, or involved, or transacting with, a sanctioned entity. As Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has demonstrated, sanctions lists are subject to change at short notice. This means firms need to ensure they have a real-time plan for managing rapid changes.

  1. Adverse media

Additional checks may also be needed if the customer is a subject of negative news media in any part of the world, as this could increase AML risk. Firms should ensure their adverse media screening is appropriately aligned with common predicate offenses.


Malice_n_Flames t1_ixusjkc wrote

“Your honor, Trump’s Deutsche bankers all killed themselves.”


jwhaler17 t1_ixuvoc8 wrote

With the same gun yet we can’t seem to find it…


ThriceFive t1_ixwch5a wrote

And all the cameras were broken except for one and the quality of that was so bad it was deemed to be unusable.


fourfourzero t1_ixvj4an wrote

When they're done with that they can go after them again for laundering Mexican cartel money.


kudichangedlives t1_ixuu8ol wrote

Fucking good job!!! Us normal people need to do as much as we can to expose these rich fucks for how terrible they actually are


Express_Helicopter93 t1_ixviefq wrote

Any time someone tries to sue a bank we should all be cheering them on. For any reason at all. All the banks are terrible.


fieldmoo t1_ixuu9i2 wrote

Thats just suicide with extra steps.


Sqantoo t1_ixvegri wrote

Should probably say her name in the title, just for referencing the obituaries in a couple weeks.


noptamoius t1_ixwrlse wrote

Not even the worst human trafficking loan paid out by Chase. Why do these people exist.


Ladypeach1080 t1_ixx8ax1 wrote

It will be interesting to see how this will play out. Hopefully she has enough evidence and a really good lawyer to see this through.


Emotional-Coffee13 t1_ixzaxfr wrote

Fun fact JP Morgan w other Republicans tried to overthrow FDR in a fascist military coup 1934 /the war hero they wanted to b dictator revealed their plot choosing democracy & the New Deal was passed (they fear “socialism”) JPM chase is still funding fascists today


strifelord t1_iy0s2w6 wrote

They still in charge of his money


FappyChan t1_iy2iqsv wrote

Im suing Ducati because someone hit me while i was on my motorcycle. They knew i coukd get in an accident and still sold me my bike. Im suing the dealership too. Im suing my motorcycle instructor from 10 years ago because he shouldve prevented the accident from happening.


WingLeviosa t1_ixyzx0z wrote

Gun makers benefit from the sale of every gun used to murder in the United States but you don’t see anyone going after them.


PrblyWbly t1_ixze65c wrote

Because they aren’t explicitly sold for “murder”. Yes they are designed to kill but under the hunting, self defense and target shooting umbrella.