The Ridiculous, Dishonest, and Outrageous "Reporting" by the NYT About Epstein Banking Records From JP Morgan Chase.

Are journalists stupid or are they simply dishonest in ignoring language in government records when the language -- or the absence of language -- undercuts the sensationalism of the story?

From 2022 there was been a lawsuit pending the Southern District of New York, brought by the Government of the U.S. Virgin Islands against JP Morgan Chase bank (JPMC) involving Jeffrey Epstein, and the role “played” by the bank in his criminal activity. With cross-motions for partial summary judgment filed and pending, the lawsuit was settled, with JP Morgan Chase paying the Virgin Islands $75 million, and $290 million into a victim compensation fund.

But the motions and oppositions for summary judgment included hundreds of documents attached as exhibits, many of which were sealed when they were filed. The New York Time and Wall Street Journal filed motions as third parties to have the exhibits unsealed. Included among the sealed exhibits were banking records of JPMC. On October 25, the judge granted the motions as to some records, subject to certain information being redacted. Among the records to be released were JPMC filings involving earlier “SARS” — “Suspicious Activity Reports” — that many commercial institutions, including banks, must file with a Department of Treasury agency under the Bank Secrecy Act.

Before getting into the details of the JPMC SAR documents, let me provide a little insight into what an SAR is — what it is not — and how it can be both useful and useless.

The key word in the caption of these documents is “Suspicious.” But this does not mean “objectively” suspicious — i.e., a particular kind of banking transaction is always suspicious and must be reported — it is “subjectively” suspicious. This means that in the context of the particular customer, the banking transaction is inconsistent with prior banking history — it stands out — and raises the question of whether the bank must notify the Dept. of Treasury’s “Financial Crimes Enforcement Network” — FinCEN.

The failure to file SARs can be a basis for a dispute between banks and bank regulators — wherein the regulators have the benefit of hindsight after some investigation has uncovered criminal activity with money flowing through bank accounts that weren’t reported. The onus is on the bank to “Know Your Customers.” That means banks must understand who it is they are allowing to use their financial networks, have some understanding about where the money is coming from and where it is going, and to “flag” transactions that — based on “knowing their customers” — might be criminal in nature, or supporting some criminal enterprise.