Explicit
Transcribed
The USVI And Their Motion To Strike JP Morgan Affirmative Defenses (Part 2) (7/26/24)
Jul 26, 2024 ·
11m 31s
Sign up for free
Listen to this episode and many more. Enjoy the best podcasts on Spreaker!
Download and listen anywhere
Download your favorite episodes and enjoy them, wherever you are! Sign up or log in now to access offline listening.
The USVI And Their Motion To Strike JP Morgan Affirmative Defenses (Part 2) (7/26/24)
This is an automatically generated transcript. Please note that complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Description
In the ongoing lawsuit filed by the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI) against JPMorgan Chase regarding the bank's alleged facilitation of Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking operations, the USVI has filed a...
show more
In the ongoing lawsuit filed by the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI) against JPMorgan Chase regarding the bank's alleged facilitation of Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking operations, the USVI has filed a motion to strike several of JPMorgan's affirmative defenses. These defenses suggest that the USVI government itself was complicit in enabling Epstein's activities.
JPMorgan argues that these defenses are crucial to demonstrate the extent of the USVI's involvement and alleged complicity in Epstein's crimes. The bank claims that high-ranking USVI officials, including former First Lady Cecile de Jongh, facilitated Epstein's operations by managing his local companies and spreading his influence throughout the government. The bank also alleges that Epstein's ties with local political figures allowed him to receive favorable treatment, such as tax benefits and reduced oversight, despite his known criminal background.
The USVI's motion to strike these defenses is seen by JPMorgan as an attempt to avoid exposing the government's own culpability. The USVI, on the other hand, maintains that JPMorgan's defenses are baseless and intended to deflect from the bank's failure to act on clear signs of Epstein's criminal behavior.
(commercial at 8:00)
to contact me:
bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
source:
gov.uscourts.nysd.610915.94.4.pdf (courtlistener.com)
show less
JPMorgan argues that these defenses are crucial to demonstrate the extent of the USVI's involvement and alleged complicity in Epstein's crimes. The bank claims that high-ranking USVI officials, including former First Lady Cecile de Jongh, facilitated Epstein's operations by managing his local companies and spreading his influence throughout the government. The bank also alleges that Epstein's ties with local political figures allowed him to receive favorable treatment, such as tax benefits and reduced oversight, despite his known criminal background.
The USVI's motion to strike these defenses is seen by JPMorgan as an attempt to avoid exposing the government's own culpability. The USVI, on the other hand, maintains that JPMorgan's defenses are baseless and intended to deflect from the bank's failure to act on clear signs of Epstein's criminal behavior.
(commercial at 8:00)
to contact me:
bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
source:
gov.uscourts.nysd.610915.94.4.pdf (courtlistener.com)
Information
Copyright 2024 - Spreaker Inc. an iHeartMedia Company
