>>514074655
USVI’s Complicity Counter-Claims: JPMorgan flipped the script, accusing USVI officials of being “complicit” in Epstein’s trafficking (Docket No. 124, defenses 5–8; opposed in No. 138). They alleged a “quid pro quo” where Epstein donated to officials (e.g., backing campaigns) in exchange for tax breaks, lax sex-offender monitoring, and influence over laws (e.g., No. 157–160 exhibits include emails and articles on USVI-Epstein ties). For example:
• Epstein allegedly used his USVI properties for trafficking, with officials like First Lady Cecile de Jongh acting as a “conduit” for favors (mentioned in filings).
• This mutual finger-pointing strengthens the trafficking narrative: Both sides agree Epstein ran a criminal enterprise; they just dispute who enabled it.
• Settlement as Implicit Proof: The case settled in September 2023 for $75 million, with JPMorgan agreeing to “significant commitments” to combat human trafficking. While settlements aren’t admissions of guilt, this payout—combined with a prior $290 million settlement with Epstein survivors—lends weight to the claims, as banks rarely pay such sums without substantial evidence.