Blog Overview
Below is a showcase of the various ways in which JPMorgan Chase is responding to the trial. First, the general statements from the company about the ethical issue will be shown, then the explanation of their actions will be given. For the best reading experience, this will be shown in a commentary-based format, with each individual release being shown with the author’s thoughts directly following throughout the article.
The Response to the Trial
Press Release
When looking into JPMorgan Chase’s response to the publicity of the trial, it seems that the company is looking to avoid as much liability as possible. As shown in a CNBC clip, the company has gone on the record stating, “…the firm deeply regrets any association with this man, and would never have continued doing business with him if it believed he was using the bank in any way to commit his heinous crimes.” – Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan Chase
Jamie Dimon
Also, NBC News reported that the company said it was “Pleased that the USVI will use the settlement proceeds to enhance the infrastructure and capabilities of their law enforcement to prevent and combat human trafficking and other crimes in their territories.”
Finally, the Washington Post was able to capture a quote from JPMorgan Chase’s lawyers that reads as follows, “JPMorgan Chase agreed to implement and maintain meaningful anti-trafficking measures, which includes a commitment to elevate and report suspicious activity in the future.”
Author’s Thoughts
First off, it does not need to be said that the apologetic statements are a clear demonstration of JPMorgan’s public relations team. These statements were not made off the cuff, instead they were hand-crafted by the ink of those trained in knowing exactly what to say, as well as when to say it. This way, the stance of the company could not be mistaken, and the narrative would remain in their favor. A very cunning, but unethical strategy by the legal team at JPMorgan Chase.
And of course, the company had to include the obligatory counterpart to the apology response, that being a “commitment” to implementing undisclosed measures to prevent this from happening again. The company’s statement was unsatisfactory in detail, and does not give the public any amount of security on how relationships like these will not re-occur. This is done on purpose, as the statement does not bound them to any restrictions when future issues inevitably arise.
The Rationale to Their Actions
Press Release
The narrative behind JPMorgan Chase’s actions in both the case and its relation to Jeffrey Epstein is two-fold in nature.
First, the company looked to support their claimed “lack of association or liability” to Jeffrey Epstein’s crimes. As another CNBC article points out, JPMorgan Chase states that it could not have been them, as the company notified the U.S. Department of the Treasury that it had identified more than $1 billion in transactions related to “human trafficking” by him dating back 16 years.
Second, the company looked to place a rationale behind providing the settlement despite not admitting to any blame. As stated in the same CNBC article, JPMorgan Chase said it “believes that this settlement is in the best interest of all parties, particularly for those who can benefit from efforts to combat human trafficking, and for survivors who suffer unimaginable abuse at the hands of these criminals.”
Author’s Thoughts
Beginning with the rationale behind the lack of liability, it is clear that their efforts were an attempt to cover up any entanglement with Epstein. The main support for this lies with the fact that the company left out the fact that Jeffrey Epstein was already dead by the time they released the information. And with that, the “courageous act” by JPMorgan begins to lose its merit; a lot of merit.
As for the settlement, this is once again an attempt to shift the narrative in their favor. Instead of stating that the settlement was restitution for their actions, it is now being flavored as the “best interest for all parties.” The public relations team at JPMorgan Chase needs a raise.
In Summary
With all the cards laid out on the table, it is evident that JPMorgan’s strategy can be defined by two words: damage control. As they picked apart each aspect of the case, there was a clear undertone of insincerity. Instead, they were simply looking to save face in the eyes of the public. In their eyes, the millions of dollars that were paid out is a small price to pay for their reputation. Poor play, JPMorgan Chase, poor play.
Works Cited
Gregg, Aaron. “JPMorgan Agrees to $75 Million Settlement Over Ties to Jeffrey Epstein.” Washington Post, 26 Sept. 2023, www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/09/26/jpmorgan-jeffrey-epstein-virgin-islands-lawsuit-settlement.
“JPMorgan Chase to Settle Jeffrey Epstein Sex Trafficking Suit by U.S. Virgin Islands for $75 Million.” CNBC, 26 Sept. 2023, www.cnbc.com/video/2023/09/26/jpmorgan-chase-to-settle-jeffrey-epstein-sex-trafficking-suit-by-u-s-virgin-islands-for-75-million.html.
“JPMorgan to Pay $75 Million to Settle Lawsuit Over Ties With Jeffrey Epstein.” NBC News, 26 Sept. 2023,www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/jp-morgan-75-million-settlement-jeffrey-epstein-lawsuit-victims-rcna117378.
Mangan, Dan, and Eamon Javers. “JPMorgan Chase Settles Jeffrey Epstein Sex Trafficking Suit by U.S. Virgin Islands for $75 Million.” CNBC, 26 Sept. 2023, www.cnbc.com/2023/09/26/jpmorgan-to-settle-jeffrey-epstein-suit-by-virgin-islands.html.
Jeremy LaValley 