Mega Edition: The USVI And Their Epstein Hypocrisy (9/8/26)

The U.S. Virgin Islands’ lawsuit against JPMorgan carried an obvious element of hypocrisy because the territory accused the bank of many of the same failures Epstein survivors later alleged against the USVI itself. In its case against JPMorgan, the territorial government argued that the bank had knowingly or negligently enabled Epstein’s trafficking operation by continuing to provide financial services despite obvious red flags, allowing suspicious cash withdrawals and payments to flow through his accounts, and choosing Epstein’s money and business relationships over the welfare of the women and girls being abused. The USVI portrayed JPMorgan as an institution that had the power to identify what was happening, the ability to intervene, and instead kept the machinery running because Epstein was financially valuable. That case ultimately produced a $75 million settlement for the territory, separate from the $290 million settlement JPMorgan reached with Epstein survivors.

The problem was that Epstein survivors later accused the USVI government and territorial officials of essentially the same institutional betrayal. Their lawsuit alleged that Epstein was allowed to build his operation openly in the Virgin Islands while receiving favorable treatment, political access and economic benefits, and that officials failed to stop him despite warning signs surrounding his status as a convicted sex offender and his activities on the islands. The contrast was difficult to miss: the USVI had demanded accountability from JPMorgan for allegedly seeing red flags, benefiting from Epstein and failing to shut him down, while survivors alleged that the territorial government itself had seen red flags, benefited economically and politically from Epstein’s presence and likewise failed to shut him down. Most of the survivors’ claims against the USVI defendants were ultimately dismissed on legal grounds, but the underlying allegations exposed the uncomfortable contradiction in the territory’s posture. The USVI had cast itself as the public authority holding an enabler accountable, while Epstein survivors were simultaneously arguing that the territory belonged in the defendant’s chair for many of the very same reasons.


to contact me:

[email protected]