Explícito
Transcrito
The USVI And Their Motion To Strike JP Morgan Affirmative Defenses (Part 2) (7/26/24)
26 de jul. de 2024 ·
11m 31s
Regístrate gratis
Escucha este episodio y muchos más. ¡Disfruta de los mejores podcasts en Spreaker!
Descarga y escucha en cualquier lugar
Descarga tus episodios favoritos y disfrútalos, ¡dondequiera que estés! Regístrate o inicia sesión ahora para acceder a la escucha sin conexión.
The USVI And Their Motion To Strike JP Morgan Affirmative Defenses (Part 2) (7/26/24)
Esta transcripción es generada automáticamente. Ten en cuenta que no se garantiza una precisión absoluta.
Descripción
In the ongoing lawsuit filed by the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI) against JPMorgan Chase regarding the bank's alleged facilitation of Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking operations, the USVI has filed a...
mostra más
In the ongoing lawsuit filed by the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI) against JPMorgan Chase regarding the bank's alleged facilitation of Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking operations, the USVI has filed a motion to strike several of JPMorgan's affirmative defenses. These defenses suggest that the USVI government itself was complicit in enabling Epstein's activities.
JPMorgan argues that these defenses are crucial to demonstrate the extent of the USVI's involvement and alleged complicity in Epstein's crimes. The bank claims that high-ranking USVI officials, including former First Lady Cecile de Jongh, facilitated Epstein's operations by managing his local companies and spreading his influence throughout the government. The bank also alleges that Epstein's ties with local political figures allowed him to receive favorable treatment, such as tax benefits and reduced oversight, despite his known criminal background.
The USVI's motion to strike these defenses is seen by JPMorgan as an attempt to avoid exposing the government's own culpability. The USVI, on the other hand, maintains that JPMorgan's defenses are baseless and intended to deflect from the bank's failure to act on clear signs of Epstein's criminal behavior.
(commercial at 8:00)
to contact me:
bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
source:
gov.uscourts.nysd.610915.94.4.pdf (courtlistener.com)
mostra menos
JPMorgan argues that these defenses are crucial to demonstrate the extent of the USVI's involvement and alleged complicity in Epstein's crimes. The bank claims that high-ranking USVI officials, including former First Lady Cecile de Jongh, facilitated Epstein's operations by managing his local companies and spreading his influence throughout the government. The bank also alleges that Epstein's ties with local political figures allowed him to receive favorable treatment, such as tax benefits and reduced oversight, despite his known criminal background.
The USVI's motion to strike these defenses is seen by JPMorgan as an attempt to avoid exposing the government's own culpability. The USVI, on the other hand, maintains that JPMorgan's defenses are baseless and intended to deflect from the bank's failure to act on clear signs of Epstein's criminal behavior.
(commercial at 8:00)
to contact me:
bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
source:
gov.uscourts.nysd.610915.94.4.pdf (courtlistener.com)
Información
Copyright 2024 - Spreaker Inc. an iHeartMedia Company
