On Sept. 8, 2025, a review of court and financial records shows that JPMorgan continued serving Jeffrey Epstein until 2013, even as employees and outside reports flagged his history of sexual crimes. The bank processed more than $1 billion in transactions for him and held hundreds of millions of dollars in his accounts, while executives debated whether to end the relationship. Senior bankers, notably Jes Staley, maintained unusually close ties to Epstein and argued for preserving the business; the relationship only ended when the bank formally cut him loose in 2013. The pattern raises questions about how incentives inside a major bank shaped risk decisions around one of the century’s most notorious sex offenders.
Key Takeaways
- JPMorgan maintained Epstein as a client through 2013, despite internal concerns and media reports about his conduct.
- The bank processed over $1 billion in transactions tied to Epstein and held deposits described as “hundreds of millions” at peak.
- At one point Epstein generated more revenue than any other investor client in JPMorgan’s private-banking unit.
- Epstein introduced senior bankers to other wealthy clients, including Sergey Brin, who placed more than $4 billion at the firm.
- Jes Staley, a senior executive, cultivated a close relationship with Epstein and advocated keeping him as a client.
- Jamie Dimon has testified he does not recall knowing about Epstein before 2019, while internal records suggest the matter reached senior levels.
- Bank officials debated reputational and legal risks but concluded the financial upside justified continuing the relationship until 2013.
Background
Jeffrey Epstein emerged over decades as a financier with an extensive personal network and large private deposits. In the mid-2000s media reporting and legal actions identified him as a sexual offender; by 2008 he had pleaded guilty in Florida to a state sex crime and became a registered sex offender. Despite that record, Epstein continued to place large sums with private-banking outfits that compete for ultrawealthy clients and the fees they generate.
Large banks’ private-banking divisions are structured to prioritize asset retention, cross-selling and relationship introductions; a single high-net-worth client can yield referral opportunities and fee income far beyond the direct account. That incentive structure creates persistent tension between compliance units — tasked with managing legal and reputational risk — and revenue-focused relationship bankers who judge clients by profitability and introductions.
Main Event
Internal JPMorgan deliberations stretching over years show employees repeatedly raised alarms about Epstein’s public reputation and the possibility of illicit activity connected to payments that flowed through his accounts. Still, senior managers weighed those concerns against the revenue and strategic value Epstein brought, including introductions to other wealthy individuals and a steady stream of private-banking fees. Records reviewed in the investigation indicate the bank lent him significant sums and processed more than $1 billion in transactions linked to his finances.
Jes Staley, who led major parts of the bank’s business, kept Epstein within his orbit. Documents and communications portray Staley and Epstein as unusually close: visits to Epstein properties, personal emails in familial terms, and repeated interactions even when Epstein was legally a convicted sex offender. Staley advocated keeping Epstein as a client when others in the firm argued for termination.
Some employees pushed to end the relationship; others worried that opposing senior managers like Staley could jeopardize careers. Meanwhile, Jamie Dimon, the bank’s chief executive, testified under oath that he does not recall knowing about Epstein before federal charges in 2019. Internal notes, however, refer to reviews “pending Dimon review,” suggesting at least some discussions reached the top. The account was ultimately closed in 2013 — before Epstein’s 2019 federal indictment — but only after protracted internal debate.
Analysis & Implications
The case highlights how bank incentives can outweigh compliance concerns: private-banking revenue and client introductions can distort risk assessments, especially when senior executives have personal ties to a client. When relationship management becomes the primary yardstick for employee performance and promotion, compliance warnings can be sidelined, and risky clients may persist on the books despite red flags.
For regulators and boards, this episode underscores the importance of governance structures that empower compliance and legal teams to act independently of revenue pressures. Firms should ensure escalation paths bypass conflicted line managers and reach senior executives who will hold conflicted parties to account. The apparent mismatch between internal unease and continued business suggests shortcomings in escalation and decision documentation.
Reputationally, large banks face second-order costs that can dwarf short-term revenue: public revelations about enabling a convicted sex offender can erode client trust, attract regulatory scrutiny, and prompt civil claims. The Epstein matter may therefore prompt more stringent client-risk reviews across private banking globally, tighter documentation of senior approvals for high-risk clients, and renewed focus on how referral incentives are structured.
Comparison & Data
| Metric | Epstein relationship | Typical private-banking client |
|---|---|---|
| Account activity processed | More than $1 billion | Varies widely; often tens to hundreds of millions |
| Deposits on record | Hundreds of millions | Often under $1 billion per individual client |
| Introductions reported | Introduced Sergey Brin (> $4B at bank) | Occasional introductions; fewer of that scale |
| Client termination year | 2013 | Depends on risk assessment and regulatory triggers |
The table places the Epstein relationship against common private-banking patterns: his accounts involved unusually large flows and yielded highly valuable introductions. That scale helps explain why bankers weighed the relationship differently than they would a smaller, routine client; it also clarifies why governance lapses had outsized consequences.
Reactions & Quotes
Official spokespeople and depositors reacted as reporting surfaced. Below are representative, brief statements placed in context.
JPMorgan has expressed regret for having done business with Epstein and has said it is not responsible for his criminal acts.
JPMorgan spokesman (statement to press)
This statement frames the bank’s public legal posture: regret over association but denial of responsibility for crimes committed by the client.
Jes Staley has acknowledged a personal relationship with Epstein and defended his management of client relationships while disputing other characterizations.
Jes Staley (deposition and public comments)
Staley’s role became central to internal debates because he both advocated for Epstein and had broad influence over promotion and decision-making in the lines that served wealthy clients.
Jamie Dimon testified he did not recall knowledge of Epstein before federal charges in 2019.
Jamie Dimon (sworn testimony)
Dimon’s statement contrasts with internal references to reviews that may have been routed to him, creating an unresolved question about how involved the very top of the bank was.
Unconfirmed
- Whether Jamie Dimon saw all internal materials referring to “pending Dimon review” remains unresolved; available records show hints but not definitive proof of his awareness.
- The full extent of payments routed to specific individuals through Epstein-linked accounts is still being litigated or sealed in some records.
- Precise reasons for the 2013 termination mix regulatory, reputational and commercial factors; the weighting of each remains unclear in public records.
Bottom Line
The JPMorgan–Epstein episode demonstrates how commercial incentives, senior relationships and imperfect governance can allow a high-risk client to persist at a major bank. Concrete figures — more than $1 billion processed, hundreds of millions on deposit, introductions that brought other wealthy clients — reveal why relationship teams pushed to retain him despite red flags.
For banks, the lesson is structural: align incentive systems so that compliance concerns cannot be routinely overridden by revenue goals or senior personal ties. For regulators and boards, the event argues for clearer escalation channels, independent review of high-risk clients, and transparent documentation of approvals that reach senior ranks.