- Chief Compliance Officer and VP of Legal Affairs, Arrow Electronics
By 
Kyle Brasseur2023-09-26T16:59:00
JPMorgan Chase agreed to pay $75 million as part of a settlement with the government of the U.S. Virgin Islands regarding the bank’s ties to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
The agreement in principle, announced by the bank Tuesday, would be separate from the $290 million the bank agreed to pay in June to settle a class-action lawsuit brought on behalf of Epstein’s victims.
JPMorgan also announced it resolved litigation it brought against former Barclays Chief Executive Jes Staley, who previously worked at JPMorgan and was accused by the bank of being responsible for its relationship with Epstein. The terms of that agreement were not disclosed.
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.
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.
A nationwide rental outlet affiliated with Rent-a-Center and its chief executive have been sued by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau for allegedly deceiving five million consumers about the terms of credit agreements.
A lack of risk visibility is causing companies to reject customers–and potentially lose money–over fears they might be in danger of violating rules around anti-money laundering and sanctions regulations.
