Banks connected to Jeffrey Epstein to face sex trafficking case

[Social Media]

Two banks connected with the late Jeffrey Epstein will face lawsuits over claims they enabled his sex trafficking, a US court has ruled.

Two women who say the financier sexually abused them brought the case against JP Morgan Chase and Deutsche Bank.

Judge Jed Rakoff also gave the go-ahead to a case against JP Morgan from the US Virgin Islands.

The banks deny being aware of Epstein's abuses.

In a four-page order Judge Rakoff wrote that the women and Virgin Islands government could try to make the case the banks had "knowingly benefited from participating in a sex trafficking venture".

He also allowed the women to pursue claims the banks were negligent and obstructed enforcement of a federal anti-trafficking law.

 

 

[KhunLA]

That's just silly.  What next, sue DIY chain stores for selling duct tape or rope to people convicted of kidnapping.

 

Sue car dealers for selling cars to people with poor driving records if they hurt someone in an accident.

 

Just another silly money grab.

 

Soon you'll need a criminal record report to open an account.

 

Wonder how many years they worked for Epstein, enjoying the good life before they decided it was abuse.

[Chomper Higgot]

50 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

That's just silly.  What next, sue DIY chain stores for selling duct tape or rope to people convicted of kidnapping.

 

Sue car dealers for selling cars to people with poor driving records if they hurt someone in an accident.

 

Just another silly money grab.

 

Soon you'll need a criminal record report to open an account.

 

Wonder how many years they worked for Epstein, enjoying the good life before they decided it was abuse.

Victim blaming.

 

There’s a surprise, not.

[KhunLA]

25 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Victim blaming.

 

There’s a surprise, not.

Victims ... ????

 

Were they chained to a bed, could they not leave anytime they wanted ?  

 

"According to claims in the lawsuit filed against JP Morgan Chase, one woman, described as a former ballet dancer, was abused by Epstein and his associates between 2006 and 2013."

 

"In a separate lawsuit against Deutsche Bank, another woman claims she was trafficked for sex by Epstein for 15 years, starting in 2003 when she first moved to New York."

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-63750504

 

 

[cleopatra2]

2 hours ago, KhunLA said:

That's just silly.  What next, sue DIY chain stores for selling duct tape or rope to people convicted of kidnapping.

 

Sue car dealers for selling cars to people with poor driving records if they hurt someone in an accident.

 

Just another silly money grab.

 

Soon you'll need a criminal record report to open an account.

 

Wonder how many years they worked for Epstein, enjoying the good life before they decided it was abuse.

The DIY store analogy is not comparable.

Jes Staley now ex JP Morgan employee had a close relationship with Epstein and is alleged to have observed the abuse.

 

[bendejo]

It never was discovered how he came to have such a load of $$$, was it?

My guess he was pimping to those to whom money was no object.  Also a little in the way of stock market tips and investment opportunities can change one's standard of living impressively, ask nearly any US senator.  And then there is the laundry service . . .
 

 

[KhunLA]

30 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

The DIY store analogy is not comparable.

Jes Staley now ex JP Morgan employee had a close relationship with Epstein and is alleged to have observed the abuse.

Knowingly laundering money for criminal activity (prostitution/blackmail/inside trading) is a crime ... yes.   But compensation for the 'willing' prostitutes is a bit much.

 

Naturally they don't want to admit to being prostitute, as couldn't cry 'victim' or possibly be charged themselves for prostitution and or tax evasion.

 

Consenting adults, having sex for years, with freedom to come & go as they please, are not victims.  

 

Ask my ex-wives ... got to come up with a better reason ????

 

 

Edited March 21, 2023 by KhunLA

[Saanim]

5 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

Knowingly laundering money for criminal activity (prostitution/blackmail/inside trading) is a crime ... yes.   But compensation for the 'willing' prostitutes is a bit much.

 

Naturally they don't want to admit to being prostitute, as couldn't cry 'victim' or possibly be charged themselves for prostitution and or tax evasion.

 

Consenting adults, having sex for years, with freedom to come & go as they please, are not victims.  

 

Ask my ex-wives ... got to come up with a better reason ????

 

 

Wondering whether we get here some Jeffrey's apologists? ???? 

[cleopatra2]

3 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

Knowingly laundering money for criminal activity (prostitution/blackmail/inside trading) is a crime ... yes.   But compensation for the 'willing' prostitutes is a bit much.

 

Naturally they don't want to admit to being prostitute, as couldn't cry 'victim' or possibly be charged themselves for prostitution and or tax evasion.

 

Consenting adults, having sex for years, with freedom to come & go as they please, are not victims.  

 

Ask my ex-wives ... got to come up with a better reason ????

 

 

If I understand correctly. You believe Epstein did not commit any crimes. Other people do and Epstein was convicted and and registered as sex offender. 

Duetsche Bank failed to follow banking regulations whilst dealing with Epstein

[AndyFoxy]

Why don't  they arrest the people (politicians, business execs etc) that had sex with kids? Rhetorical question as I think we know the answer.

[KhunLA]

7 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

If I understand correctly. You believe Epstein did not commit any crimes. Other people do and Epstein was convicted and and registered as sex offender. 

Duetsche Bank failed to follow banking regulations whilst dealing with Epstein

Where did I state that ?  

 

Although public record, who would know that.  Are banks suppose to run background checks on their customers.

 

Is it against banking laws to accept customers with criminal records ?

 

You're getting silly.

[KhunLA]

25 minutes ago, Saanim said:

Wondering whether we get here some Jeffrey's apologists? ???? 

Epstein was a sleazy guy, no doubt, and got convicted for being such.  

 

Apologist ????

 

Epstein is the distraction, the issue is banking laws and compensation to consenting adults having sex, and now want to cash in via lawsuits.

 

Try discussing, arguing the issue, not shoot the messenger ...

... almost forgot what site I was on.

 

Edited March 21, 2023 by KhunLA

[cleopatra2]

1 hour ago, KhunLA said:

Where did I state that ?  

 

Although public record, who would know that.  Are banks suppose to run background checks on their customers.

 

Is it against banking laws to accept customers with criminal records ?

 

You're getting silly.

It is not against the law for banks to accept criminals .However there are regulations about the account management for sex offenders.

Deutsche was aware of his conviction and the information was brought to the executives attention . 

[KhunLA]

18 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

It is not against the law for banks to accept criminals .However there are regulations about the account management for sex offenders.

Deutsche was aware of his conviction and the information was brought to the executives attention . 

OK, but why should adults, 'working' for him, consenting to have sex with his 'friends & business associates' be compensated while working for him for years.

 

They are not victims, and could have left at anytime over those years of enjoying the spoils of their 'past tIme' w/clients.

 

It's a money grab .... nothing else IMHO

[Skeptic7]

Ludicrous, this. But that said...not surprising. Remember working at a liquor store when I was 20 in the USA. Suddenly we had to start being extra careful about selling our products. Of course we checked ID (legal drinking age then was 18), but lawsuits had been filed against liquor stores for customers getting drunk, then killing or injuring people while driving intoxicated. It was outrageously concluded that the liquor stores could somehow be to blame as well. So we stopped issuing receipts, unless customers specifically requested one...which they rarely ever did. That way it couldn't be proven where the alcohol was purchased. Problem solved. 

 

Highly doubtful these banks will be found guilty. Perhaps individual employees, but not these giant bank names. Total money grab, just hoping for a pretrial settlement. 

Edited March 21, 2023 by Skeptic7

[KhunLA]

25 minutes ago, Skeptic7 said:

Ludicrous, this. But that said...not surprising. Remember working at a liquor store when I was 20 in the USA. Suddenly we had to start being extra careful about selling our products. Of course we checked ID (legal drinking age then was 18), but lawsuits had been filed against liquor stores for customers getting drunk, then killing or injuring people while driving intoxicated. It was outrageously concluded that the liquor stores could somehow be to blame as well. So we stopped issuing receipts, unless customers specifically requested one...which they rarely ever did. That way it couldn't be proven where the alcohol was purchased. Problem solved. 

 

Highly doubtful these banks will be found guilty. Perhaps individual employees, but not these giant bank names. Total money grab, just hoping for a pretrial settlement. 

Yes, same when I was bartending.  If someone was on his way to stupid drunk, and wanted to keep on drinking, he/she gave up their car keys.  

 

No keys or designated driver, they didn't get served.

[Skeptic7]

16 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

Yes, same when I was bartending.  If someone was on his way to stupid drunk, and wanted to keep on drinking, he/she gave up their car keys.  

 

No keys or designated driver, they didn't get served.

Not quite the same. You were required to monitor and be the liquor police as well as bartender. In our case, there was NO onsite drinking at our retail store. They could buy a bottle stone cold sober after work. Drink themselves into a stupor elsewhere, then kill someone driving home. A sales receipt found in the car or on their person could be enough to come back against and implicate the store. Of course we could and did refuse sales to the obviously intoxicated, but not everyone shows it the same. Not always obvious.

 

Anyhoo, back to the OP...agree, money grab. 

[Paradise Pete]

15 hours ago, KhunLA said:

Where did I state that ?  

 

Although public record, who would know that.  Are banks suppose to run background checks on their customers.

 

Is it against banking laws to accept customers with criminal records ?

 

You're getting silly.

It seems like you're assuming the banks simply did business with him and knew nothing about his activities. If that were clearly true it's quite unlikely that the cases would be able to proceed. There must be at least some evidence that the banks were aware that not everything was squeaky clean and yet chose to ignore it. 

[KhunLA]

4 hours ago, Paradise Pete said:

It seems like you're assuming the banks simply did business with him and knew nothing about his activities. If that were clearly true it's quite unlikely that the cases would be able to proceed. There must be at least some evidence that the banks were aware that not everything was squeaky clean and yet chose to ignore it. 

This may help people understand the basis of the lawsuit.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jes_Staley

 

Should a bank be held responsible for a clients behavior and how did they directly benefit from that behavior.   Did they receive a commission from every favor passed on to Epstein.

 

Open that door, and you won't have enough jail cells to house all the criminals that do banking.

Edited March 22, 2023 by KhunLA

[Chomper Higgot]

20 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

This may help people understand the basis of the lawsuit.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jes_Staley

 

Should a bank be held responsible for a clients behavior and how did they directly benefit from that behavior.   Did they receive a commission from every favor passed on to Epstein.

 

Open that door, and you won't have enough jail cells to house all the criminals that do banking.

Good luck to the plaintiffs, those people you feel the need to refer to as Prostitutes.

 

I don’t suppose your urge to denigrate  these women has anything to do with that special kind of loathing reserved for women who have temerity to speak up for themselves?!

 

Nah, that couldn’t be it, surely not.

 

I do however agree, we don’t have enough jail cells for the criminals in Banking.

 

Edited March 22, 2023 by Chomper Higgot

[KhunLA]

10 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Good luck to the plaintiffs, those people you feel the need to refer to as Prostitutes.

 

I don’t suppose your urge to denigrate  these women has anything to do with that special kind of loathing reserved for women who have temerity to speak up for themselves?!

 

Nah, that couldn’t be it, surely not.

 

I do however agree, we don’t have enough jail cells for the criminals in Banking.

 

Actually I have great respect for prostitutes, and I'm a firm believer, even endorse self employment, of any kind.

 

I think people who work salaried jobs that they don't like for their whole life are total idiots.

 

But to call themselves 'victims' is beyond a stretch.  Anyone not acknowledging that, then the conversation is over.

 

Victims they are not .... now, should the banks be held responsible for clients' moral or criminal (suspected or un-convicted, if applicable) behavior.

Edited March 22, 2023 by KhunLA

[Chomper Higgot]

9 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

Actually I have great respect for prostitutes, and I'm a firm believer, even endorse self employment, of any kind.

 

I think people who work salaried jobs that they don't like for their whole life are total idiots.

 

But to call themselves 'victims' is beyond a stretch.

Anyone not acknowledging that, then the conversation is over.

 

Victims they are not .... now, should the banks be held responsible for clients' moral or criminal (suspected or un-convicted, if applicable) behavior.

Yeh, OK, if you say so.

 

You stated above Prostitution is a crime, you’ve accused the plaintiffs of being prostitutes.

 

Do you have evidence of them being prostitutes, perhaps public records of convictions.

 

Or do you normally brand people as participants in criminality without evidence?

 

 

Edited March 22, 2023 by Chomper Higgot

[KhunLA]

7 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Yeh, OK, if you say so.

With that .. no sense in continuing ...

... have a nice day

[Chomper Higgot]

43 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

With that .. no sense in continuing ...

... have a nice day

Dodge the rest of my post then.

 

Others however can read it and draw their own conclusions.

 

 

 

 

Edited March 22, 2023 by Chomper Higgot

[Misty]

22 hours ago, bendejo said:

It never was discovered how he came to have such a load of $$$, was it?

My guess he was pimping to those to whom money was no object.  Also a little in the way of stock market tips and investment opportunities can change one's standard of living impressively, ask nearly any US senator.  And then there is the laundry service . . .
 

 

Best guess: the pimping wasn't about money, it was about information.  Pimping provided the kompromat that was Epstein protection against his real racket.  He was friends with and following in the footsteps of Robert Maxwell.  He got up to the same activities that Maxwell got up to, and that's where the big money came in.  Pimping just gave him dirt on important people, in case he needed protection.

[KhunLA]

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Dodge the rest of my post then.

 

Others however can read it and draw their own conclusions.

What's the point if you think I'm a liar and why would I continue, waste my time on a conversation with some who does.   This or any conversation in the future.

[Chomper Higgot]

2 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

What's the point if you think I'm a liar and why would I continue, waste my time on a conversation with some who does.   This or any conversation in the future.

I didn’t call you a liar.

 

I have however juxtaposed your claims with other statements you’ve made.

Perhaps you are simply inconsistent, many people are.

[Saanim]

4 hours ago, Misty said:

Best guess: the pimping wasn't about money, it was about information.  Pimping provided the kompromat that was Epstein protection against his real racket.  He was friends with and following in the footsteps of Robert Maxwell.  He got up to the same activities that Maxwell got up to, and that's where the big money came in.  Pimping just gave him dirt on important people, in case he needed protection.

That's right. And his net was not only very wide but also reaching very high.  

[Chomper Higgot]

On 3/21/2023 at 1:14 PM, KhunLA said:

OK, but why should adults, 'working' for him, consenting to have sex with his 'friends & business associates' be compensated while working for him for years.

 

They are not victims, and could have left at anytime over those years of enjoying the spoils of their 'past tIme' w/clients.

 

It's a money grab .... nothing else IMHO

Working for him?

 

Like with a contract of employment?