Donations to Long List of Senators From Epstein, More de Jongh Dealings Exposed in Newly Unsealed Documents

In the latest development in the legal proceedings between the U.S. Virgin Islands and JPMorgan Chase, the voluminous filings on both sides continue as the parties make objections to their opponents’ requests for partial summary judgment.

In JPMorgan Chase’s reply to the USVI’s opposition to summary judgment in the bank’s favor, JPMorgan’s attorneys argued that the territory has failed on three occasions to explain why it should be granted “victim damages” or “punitive damages,” or what gives the USVI the authority to enforce federal criminal law. The bank also argues that both parties agreed that the federal investigation into the activities of deceased sex-offender Jeffery Esptein was not publicly disclosed, and therefore it could not have intentionally acted to thwart a probe it did not know was occurring.

“After intense discovery and ample briefing, the USVI’s inability to articulate any viable damages theory – or to identify any facts that could constitute intentional ‘obstruction’ – is now plain,” the reply reads. “Summary judgment should enter.”

In response, the GVI’s legal team argued that the territory is entitled to summary judgment on its claims relating to the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, as Epstein’s sex-trafficking activities were largely centered in and around his property in the territory. Noting that it intends to call at least one alleged victim of Epstein to the stand during trial, GVI says that after 2008, the fact that JPMorgan employees were only scrutinizing Epstein for “reputational risk” and not “continued illegal activity” shows that the bank was indeed in reckless disregard of Epstein’s potential danger to vulnerable girls and women.