Skimming over Wikipedia's account of Epstein... His activities were very widely known - including to the police, FBI, etc. - for a decade or two before his final arrest. It looks like the the top official decision makers - especially U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta - were more interested in protecting Epstein than in ending his "activities". And plausibly he'd still be at it if he'd been a bit less inclined to loud bragging, and a bit more inclined to basic OPSEC.
Beyond "get rich by going after the non-celebrities with deep pockets", I can't see any possible good coming out of this lawsuit.
I've seen nothing specific about how JPMorgan should have divined Epstein's activities from what they knew. Another article said the senior JPMorgan exec. handling Epstein had asked Jeff to give career advice to his young daughter - hardly compatible with "of course the bank knew all about..." arguments.
Banks have been making fortunes, for ages, by handling the money of sleazy rich people. Compared to that, the sums involved here are barely a rounding error. And this little fuss certainly didn't interfere with JPMorgan scooping up (by some accounts) 90% of Silicon Valley Bank's customers, and much of SVB's top talent.
Acosta gave Epstein the sweetheart deal to end all sweetheart deals: rape 34 known minors and get a slap on the wrist alongside a shutdown of an investigation into more crimes and a non-prosecution agreement, including breaking a federal law to avoid telling the victims about the deal. He then ended up in the Trump cabinet. I'll leave it to you to decide if those two are connected (I mean, yes. Obviously yes. He was bought, and we're all just ignoring it.)
> As part of the arrangement, Acosta agreed, despite a federal law to the contrary, that the deal would be kept from the victims. As a result, the non-prosecution agreement was sealed until after it was approved by the judge, thereby averting any chance that the girls — or anyone else — might show up in court and try to derail it. [1]
You’re polluting hacker news with this main stream news garbage. Hacker news is meant for tech, science, engineering, and startups, not this irrelevant banker.
8 comments
[ 3.7 ms ] story [ 40.5 ms ] threadBeyond "get rich by going after the non-celebrities with deep pockets", I can't see any possible good coming out of this lawsuit.
I've seen nothing specific about how JPMorgan should have divined Epstein's activities from what they knew. Another article said the senior JPMorgan exec. handling Epstein had asked Jeff to give career advice to his young daughter - hardly compatible with "of course the bank knew all about..." arguments.
Banks have been making fortunes, for ages, by handling the money of sleazy rich people. Compared to that, the sums involved here are barely a rounding error. And this little fuss certainly didn't interfere with JPMorgan scooping up (by some accounts) 90% of Silicon Valley Bank's customers, and much of SVB's top talent.
> As part of the arrangement, Acosta agreed, despite a federal law to the contrary, that the deal would be kept from the victims. As a result, the non-prosecution agreement was sealed until after it was approved by the judge, thereby averting any chance that the girls — or anyone else — might show up in court and try to derail it. [1]
it's so blatant that 2/3rds of Acosta's wiki page covers the deal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Acosta
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Acosta#:~:text=The%2...