- Chief Compliance Officer and VP of Legal Affairs, Arrow Electronics
By 
Kyle Brasseur2023-06-12T16:38:00
JPMorgan Chase announced Monday it reached an agreement in principle to settle claims made in a class-action lawsuit regarding the bank’s ties to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
Terms of the agreement were not disclosed, though David Boies, one of the victims’ attorneys, confirmed the bank agreed to pay $290 million as part of the settlement. Under the agreement, which must be approved by the court, JPMorgan did not admit liability.
“The parties believe this settlement is in the best interests of all parties, especially the survivors who were the victims of Epstein’s terrible abuse,” said JPMorgan and the legal representatives of the female victims in a joint statement.
THIS IS MEMBERS-ONLY CONTENT. To continue reading, choose one of the options below.
News and analysis for the well-informed compliance or audit exec. Select an option and click continue.
Annual Membership $499 Value offer
Full price one year membership with auto-renewal.
Membership $599
One-year only, no auto-renewal.
Both JPMorgan Chase and Deutsche Bank retained their respective Jeffrey Epstein relationships for too long. Yet, there is a case to be made for why exiting a high-risk relationship too soon can become an inverse form of recklessness.
Why did JPMorgan Chase retain Jeffrey Epstein for more than a dozen years? How did the relationship persist despite glaring red flags? The “why” is straightforward; the “how” is more complicated.
Jeffrey Epstein’s designation as a high-risk client should have subjected him to enhanced due diligence that never appeared to occur, most notably at Deutsche Bank. Instead, Epstein was allowed to continue his misconduct despite numerous red flags.
When the DOJ released its revised Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs, it turned some heads. Tucked into a section on risk assessments was a strongly worded series of questions that appeared to shoulder compliance teams with the responsibility for ensuring the safe use of AI tools by their firms.
The Department of Justice’s Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs has made the importance of artificial intelligence governance frameworks clear, but it didn’t say what role compliance should play. Here’s the answer.
The U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network issued an alert to financial institutions about their obligations to report deepfakes, warning artificial intelligence has given bad actors additional tools in their arsenal.
