Podcasts about Jes Staley

Ghislaine Maxwell maintained a significant and unusually close relationship with JPMorgan Chase, largely through her direct connection to Jes Staley, one of the bank's most powerful executives at the time. Court filings and internal bank records show that Maxwell was not treated as a marginal or incidental figure, but as someone with meaningful access to JPMorgan's senior leadership. Her association with Staley—who had a long-standing personal and professional relationship with Jeffrey Epstein—placed her within JPMorgan's orbit during the years Epstein remained a high-value client, despite his prior criminal exposure.That relationship mattered because it helped normalize Maxwell's presence within elite financial circles and insulated Epstein's network from scrutiny. Evidence revealed in Epstein-related litigation shows that Maxwell communicated directly with Staley on multiple occasions and was viewed by JPMorgan insiders as part of Epstein's inner circle, not an outsider. As JPMorgan continued to service Epstein's accounts, Maxwell's ties to Staley reinforced the perception that Epstein remained institutionally protected and trusted at the highest levels of the bank. The connection underscores how Epstein's operation was intertwined with powerful financial relationships—and how those relationships helped sustain access, credibility, and protection long after red flags were impossible to ignore.to contact  me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Jes Staley has repeatedly argued that he was unfairly railroaded by his association with Jeffrey Epstein, portraying himself as collateral damage in a scandal he claims was exaggerated and mischaracterized. In public statements and court filings, Jes Staley has insisted that his relationship with Epstein was overstated, that he had no knowledge of Epstein's criminal conduct, and that the fallout cost him his career and reputation unjustly. Staley has framed the allegations as a narrative pile-on—suggesting that regulators, banks, and the media needed a single, convenient figure to absorb blame once Epstein's crimes became impossible to ignore.Those denials, however, collapse under the weight of the documented facts. Emails, travel records, and testimony show that Staley maintained a far closer and longer relationship with Jeffrey Epstein than he publicly acknowledged, including repeated personal contact well after Epstein's 2008 conviction. Evidence revealed during regulatory investigations and litigation contradicts Staley's claims of distance and ignorance, exposing a pattern of sustained engagement that undercuts his credibility. When set against the paper trail, Staley's insistence that he was merely an unlucky bystander rings hollow—less a case of being railroaded, and more an example of how implausible denials unravel once they're tested against emails, calendars, and sworn findings.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Jes Staley's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein wasn't just a lapse in judgment—it was a full-blown embrace of depravity dressed up as “networking.” Staley wasn't dragged into Epstein's orbit; he signed up for the frequent flyer program. He flew to the island, sent creepy “Snow White” emails, and played the role of banker, buddy, and image-launderer for a convicted sex offender. This wasn't ignorance—it was arrogance. He knew exactly who Epstein was and decided that power, money, and access were worth more than decency, truth, or his own reputation.In the end, Staley will never be remembered for his banking career or “leadership.” His legacy is sealed as Epstein's enabler, lapdog, and fool—the man who polished the monster's image while survivors were left fighting for justice. He represents everything rotten about high finance: greed over morality, image over truth, connections over humanity. Staley thought he could walk hand-in-hand with Epstein and still be respected. Instead, he's a permanent cautionary tale of complicity, corruption, and cowardice.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Jes Staley has repeatedly argued that he was unfairly railroaded by his association with Jeffrey Epstein, portraying himself as collateral damage in a scandal he claims was exaggerated and mischaracterized. In public statements and court filings, Jes Staley has insisted that his relationship with Epstein was overstated, that he had no knowledge of Epstein's criminal conduct, and that the fallout cost him his career and reputation unjustly. Staley has framed the allegations as a narrative pile-on—suggesting that regulators, banks, and the media needed a single, convenient figure to absorb blame once Epstein's crimes became impossible to ignore.Those denials, however, collapse under the weight of the documented facts. Emails, travel records, and testimony show that Staley maintained a far closer and longer relationship with Jeffrey Epstein than he publicly acknowledged, including repeated personal contact well after Epstein's 2008 conviction. Evidence revealed during regulatory investigations and litigation contradicts Staley's claims of distance and ignorance, exposing a pattern of sustained engagement that undercuts his credibility. When set against the paper trail, Staley's insistence that he was merely an unlucky bystander rings hollow—less a case of being railroaded, and more an example of how implausible denials unravel once they're tested against emails, calendars, and sworn findings.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The first two batches of the Epstein files have finally been released, and the revelations are explosive. For decades, the media and the justice system ignored the most basic question: Who helped him? Now, thanks to thousands of pages of newly released DOJ documents, we know that there were the co-conspirators. In this video, we look through the latest evidence to expose the network of co-conspirators and high-powered enablers who made Jeffrey Epstein's crimes possible. We go beyond the headlines to reveal the specific individuals—from Ghislaine Maxwell to banking titans like Jes Staley—who were far closer to Epstein's operation than they ever admitted.We break down the bombshell New York Times investigation that dismantles the myth of Epstein's "financial genius" and uncover the bipartisan cover-up that kept these files buried for 40 years. From Donald Trump's newly revealed flight logs to Bill Clinton's White House connections, we show how a "two-tier" justice system worked to protect the powerful at the expense of the truth.New York Times article: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/16/magazine/jeffrey-epstein-money-scams-investigation.htmlPatrick's Books:Statistics For The Trading Floor: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://amzn.to/3eerLA0⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Derivatives For The Trading Floor: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ https://amzn.to/3cjsyPF⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Corporate Finance: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://amzn.to/3fn3rvC ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Ways To Support The Channel:Patreon: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.patreon.com/PatrickBoyleOnFinance⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Buy Me a Coffee: https://www.buymeacoffee.com/patrickboyle

The downfall of Jes Staley traces back to his long-running professional and personal relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, which resurfaced publicly years after Epstein's crimes became widely known. While serving as CEO of Barclays, regulators began scrutinizing the extent to which Staley had been transparent about the relationship, including email contact that continued after Epstein's 2008 conviction. Staley initially characterized Epstein as a limited professional acquaintance, but subsequent disclosures—particularly emails referring to Epstein as a “trusted friend”—undermined that account and raised concerns about candor and judgment at the highest levels of the bank.In 2021, UK regulators concluded that Staley had mischaracterized the nature of his ties to Epstein, leading to his forced resignation from Barclays and a formal investigation into whether he had misled the board and regulators. The episode effectively ended Staley's career at the top tier of global banking and later followed him into litigation, including a lawsuit by JPMorgan Chase, where he had previously worked and overseen the Epstein relationship. Staley has argued that institutions used him as a scapegoat for broader failures, but the reputational damage proved decisive: his association with Epstein became inseparable from questions of credibility, oversight, and accountability—turning a once-powerful banking executive into one of the most prominent professional casualties of the Epstein scandal.to contact  me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

In court filings responding to JPMorgan Chase's lawsuit, Jes Staley went on the offensive, arguing that the bank was attempting to shift institutional responsibility for its long relationship with Jeffrey Epstein onto him personally. JPMorgan has alleged that Staley, a former senior executive, misled the bank about Epstein and failed to flag risks, seeking to claw back compensation and damages tied to Epstein-related settlements. Staley countered that the bank's claims were legally and factually flawed, emphasizing that Epstein remained a JPMorgan client through decisions made by multiple committees and compliance systems, not at his unilateral direction.Staley's filings portrayed JPMorgan's case as a reputational maneuver rather than a good-faith effort to establish accountability, asserting that the bank approved, monitored, and renewed Epstein's accounts long after concerns were known internally. He argued that the lawsuit was designed to make him a public scapegoat for broader institutional failures in risk management and governance, while minimizing the role of the bank itself. Although a judge allowed JPMorgan's case to proceed, Staley's aggressive defense reframed the dispute as a contest over who bears responsibility for keeping Epstein as a client—an issue that continues to shadow both the bank and the executive as the litigation moves forward.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In filings in 2023, former Jes Staley asked a federal judge in Manhattan to dismiss JPMorgan Chase's lawsuit against him related to the bank's handling of its relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. JPMorgan sued Staley seeking to recover compensation and losses tied to two lawsuits the bank faces over its work with Epstein, alleging Staley misled the bank about Epstein's character and conduct and failed to address internal concerns about keeping Epstein as a client. In response, Staley argued that the bank's claims lacked both legal and factual basis, and he urged the judge to throw out the case because the bank was unfairly trying to pin blame on him for broader institutional decisions made by JPMorgan. Staley specifically accused the bank of using him as a “public relations shield” to deflect criticism and responsibility for its own alleged failures in managing its relationship with Epstein rather than focusing on substantive legal issues.A federal judge later denied Staley's motion to dismiss, saying the case would proceed and that explanations would follow in written orders. Staley's defense centered on the idea that JPMorgan could not plausibly hold him solely responsible for decisions made by the bank years earlier, especially when there were no clear allegations that he directly facilitated Epstein's criminal activities or knew of them firsthand. His contention was that JPMorgan was attempting to deflect scrutiny from its own policies and practices by placing him at the center of high-profile litigation, turning him into a scapegoat for reputational purposes. The legal dispute was part of broader litigation tied to Epstein's network and the bank's role in enabling his financial activities.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

El Departamento de Justicia ha publicado en los últimos días dos lotes de documentos relacionados con las investigaciones federales sobre Jeffrey Epstein, el financiero condenado por delitos sexuales que se suicidó en prisión en 2019. Esta liberación de documentos confidenciales, en los que hay miles de páginas, fotografías y correos electrónicos, responden a una ley aprobada por el Congreso en noviembre de este año, que obliga al Departamento de Justicia a hacer públicos la mayoría de los registros no clasificados sobre Epstein y su cómplice Ghislaine Maxwell. El primer lote apareció el viernes pasado y consta de más de 13.000 archivos. El segundo se hizo público el martes con otro dossier de casi 30.000 páginas. En los archivos encontramos los indicios incautados por el FBI en las tres residencias de Epstein (Nueva York, Palm Beach y su isla privada en las Islas Vírgenes), registros de vuelos de su jet privado, entrevistas del FBI con víctimas, varias versiones de su testamento y materiales sobre sus últimos días en prisión. Entre los elementos destacados hay fotografías (muchas ya conocidas de procesos judiciales previos) que muestran a Epstein con figuras prominentes como Bill Clinton, un pasaporte austriaco falso caducado en 1987 y versiones del testamento donde nombra como posibles albaceas a personas como Larry Summers y Jes Staley. También figura una carta, que supuestamente Epstein envió desde la cárcel al delincuente sexual Larry Nassar, mencionando a Trump. Según el FBI esta carta es falsa. Los documentos contienen numerosas referencias a Donald Trump, especialmente recortes de prensa y registros de vuelos de los años 90. Un correo de un fiscal federal del año 2020 indica que Trump voló en el avión de Epstein al menos ocho veces entre 1993 y 1996, algunas con Maxwell y varias mujeres jóvenes. Estos viajes ya se conocieron durante el juicio de Maxwell hace cinco años. El Departamento de Justicia ha insistido en que algunas acusaciones contra Trump son infundadas, y el presidente ha negado que cometiese ilegalidad alguna. También ha recordado que que cortó la relación con Epstein antes de su primera detención en 2006. La publicación ha generado críticas de ambos partidos por la cantidad de tachaduras que presentan los documentos y el hecho de que la liberación sea parcial. Esto consideran que es un incumplimiento de la ley. Los Demócratas y las víctimas de Epstein exigen más detalles y que se presente el material sin censura de ningún tipo. El Departamento de Justicia ha prometido seguir liberando documentos en las próximas fechas. Aunque de esta documentación no se extraen pruebas contra nadie que no sea el propio Epstein o Maxwell, que ya está en la cárcel, las tachaduras alimentan las especulaciones. Mantienen además el caso como un foco candente de división, especialmente dentro del movimiento MAGA, que es donde con más devoción se ha vivido el escándalo Epstein desde sus inicios. En La ContraRéplica: 0:00 Introducción 3:41 Los archivos Epstein 34:21 “Contra el pesimismo”… https://amzn.to/4m1RX2R 36:25 La utilidad de Copilot 40:23 La UE y los vehículos de combustión 47:31 Hakuna en la Puerta del Sol · Canal de Telegram: https://t.me/lacontracronica · “Contra el pesimismo”… https://amzn.to/4m1RX2R · “Hispanos. Breve historia de los pueblos de habla hispana”… https://amzn.to/428js1G · “La ContraHistoria del comunismo”… https://amzn.to/39QP2KE · “La ContraHistoria de España. Auge, caída y vuelta a empezar de un país en 28 episodios”… https://amzn.to/3kXcZ6i · “Contra la Revolución Francesa”… https://amzn.to/4aF0LpZ · “Lutero, Calvino y Trento, la Reforma que no fue”… https://amzn.to/3shKOlK Apoya La Contra en: · Patreon... https://www.patreon.com/diazvillanueva · iVoox... https://www.ivoox.com/podcast-contracronica_sq_f1267769_1.html · Paypal... https://www.paypal.me/diazvillanueva Sígueme en: · Web... https://diazvillanueva.com · Twitter... https://twitter.com/diazvillanueva · Facebook... https://www.facebook.com/fernandodiazvillanueva1/ · Instagram... https://www.instagram.com/diazvillanueva · Linkedin… https://www.linkedin.com/in/fernando-d%C3%ADaz-villanueva-7303865/ · Flickr... https://www.flickr.com/photos/147276463@N05/?/ · Pinterest... https://www.pinterest.com/fernandodiazvillanueva Encuentra mis libros en: · Amazon... https://www.amazon.es/Fernando-Diaz-Villanueva/e/B00J2ASBXM #FernandoDiazVillanueva #epstein #trump Escucha el episodio completo en la app de iVoox, o descubre todo el catálogo de iVoox Originals

The downfall of Jes Staley traces back to his long-running professional and personal relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, which resurfaced publicly years after Epstein's crimes became widely known. While serving as CEO of Barclays, regulators began scrutinizing the extent to which Staley had been transparent about the relationship, including email contact that continued after Epstein's 2008 conviction. Staley initially characterized Epstein as a limited professional acquaintance, but subsequent disclosures—particularly emails referring to Epstein as a “trusted friend”—undermined that account and raised concerns about candor and judgment at the highest levels of the bank.In 2021, UK regulators concluded that Staley had mischaracterized the nature of his ties to Epstein, leading to his forced resignation from Barclays and a formal investigation into whether he had misled the board and regulators. The episode effectively ended Staley's career at the top tier of global banking and later followed him into litigation, including a lawsuit by JPMorgan Chase, where he had previously worked and overseen the Epstein relationship. Staley has argued that institutions used him as a scapegoat for broader failures, but the reputational damage proved decisive: his association with Epstein became inseparable from questions of credibility, oversight, and accountability—turning a once-powerful banking executive into one of the most prominent professional casualties of the Epstein scandal.to contact  me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In September 2023, a federal judge in Manhattan granted former JPMorgan executive Jes Staley permission to depose one of the unnamed Jeffrey Epstein accusers who had sued JPMorgan Chase & Co. alleging the bank benefited from Epstein's crimes. The ruling allowed Staley's legal team to question the woman—identified in filings only as Jane Doe—in person in the city where she lives, despite her previously expressed concerns about facing what her attorneys described as potentially intrusive questioning. This order came in the context of a broader settlement between JPMorgan and Epstein's victims, and situated within the ongoing pretrial litigation over the bank's liability and Staley's role in the bank's relationship with Epstein.The judge's decision followed arguments from Staley's lawyers that questioning the accuser was necessary to challenge key factual assertions about what she knew and when, which bear on claims against Staley personally in JPMorgan's third-party complaint. Staley's request was distinct from and in addition to his own scheduled deposition in the broader litigation involving the U.S. Virgin Islands and other plaintiffs, and the judge's order set logistical parameters for how that deposition of the accuser would be conducted before fact discovery closed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In September 2023, a federal judge in Manhattan granted former JPMorgan executive Jes Staley permission to depose one of the unnamed Jeffrey Epstein accusers who had sued JPMorgan Chase & Co. alleging the bank benefited from Epstein's crimes. The ruling allowed Staley's legal team to question the woman—identified in filings only as Jane Doe—in person in the city where she lives, despite her previously expressed concerns about facing what her attorneys described as potentially intrusive questioning. This order came in the context of a broader settlement between JPMorgan and Epstein's victims, and situated within the ongoing pretrial litigation over the bank's liability and Staley's role in the bank's relationship with Epstein.The judge's decision followed arguments from Staley's lawyers that questioning the accuser was necessary to challenge key factual assertions about what she knew and when, which bear on claims against Staley personally in JPMorgan's third-party complaint. Staley's request was distinct from and in addition to his own scheduled deposition in the broader litigation involving the U.S. Virgin Islands and other plaintiffs, and the judge's order set logistical parameters for how that deposition of the accuser would be conducted before fact discovery closed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Recently unsealed Department of Justice records show that **Jeffrey Epstein named Jes Staley and Larry Summers as potential executors in earlier draft versions of his estate planning documents from the 2010s, though neither appeared in the final will he signed in 2019. According to the newly released materials under the Epstein Files Transparency Act, Staley first appeared in a 2012 draft as a “successor executor” and was later listed as a full executor in versions from 2013 and 2014, while Summers was named a successor executor in a 2014 revision. These designations would have given both men significant authority over Epstein's vast estate if the primary executors were unable or unwilling to serve — a striking inclusion given their high public profiles. However, in the final will drafted shortly before Epstein's death, both men were removed and are absent from the 2019 document that ultimately governs the estate.Oh these are the guys we're supposed to tiptoe around for? These are the delicate reputations the system keeps clearing its throat to protect? A Wall Street lifer who can't explain his Epstein emails without tripping over himself, and an academic power broker who spent years pretending his association with Epstein was some innocent clerical error? These are the men whose good names require sealed files, careful wording, and institutional panic? Give me a break. If the truth about a dead sex trafficker's will is enough to embarrass you, then maybe the embarrassment isn't the problem — maybe it's the résumé. The idea that the public must be shielded from learning that Jeffrey Epstein trusted these guys with his estate isn't discretion, it's comedy. And not even good comedy — it's the kind that only plays in boardrooms where accountability has been dead longer than Epstein himself.to conact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Jeffrey Epstein named Larry Summers, Jes Staley as estate executors in draft wills | New York Post

In filings in 2023, former Jes Staley asked a federal judge in Manhattan to dismiss JPMorgan Chase's lawsuit against him related to the bank's handling of its relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. JPMorgan sued Staley seeking to recover compensation and losses tied to two lawsuits the bank faces over its work with Epstein, alleging Staley misled the bank about Epstein's character and conduct and failed to address internal concerns about keeping Epstein as a client. In response, Staley argued that the bank's claims lacked both legal and factual basis, and he urged the judge to throw out the case because the bank was unfairly trying to pin blame on him for broader institutional decisions made by JPMorgan. Staley specifically accused the bank of using him as a “public relations shield” to deflect criticism and responsibility for its own alleged failures in managing its relationship with Epstein rather than focusing on substantive legal issues.A federal judge later denied Staley's motion to dismiss, saying the case would proceed and that explanations would follow in written orders. Staley's defense centered on the idea that JPMorgan could not plausibly hold him solely responsible for decisions made by the bank years earlier, especially when there were no clear allegations that he directly facilitated Epstein's criminal activities or knew of them firsthand. His contention was that JPMorgan was attempting to deflect scrutiny from its own policies and practices by placing him at the center of high-profile litigation, turning him into a scapegoat for reputational purposes. The legal dispute was part of broader litigation tied to Epstein's network and the bank's role in enabling his financial activities.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Recently unsealed Department of Justice records show that **Jeffrey Epstein named Jes Staley and Larry Summers as potential executors in earlier draft versions of his estate planning documents from the 2010s, though neither appeared in the final will he signed in 2019. According to the newly released materials under the Epstein Files Transparency Act, Staley first appeared in a 2012 draft as a “successor executor” and was later listed as a full executor in versions from 2013 and 2014, while Summers was named a successor executor in a 2014 revision. These designations would have given both men significant authority over Epstein's vast estate if the primary executors were unable or unwilling to serve — a striking inclusion given their high public profiles. However, in the final will drafted shortly before Epstein's death, both men were removed and are absent from the 2019 document that ultimately governs the estate.Oh these are the guys we're supposed to tiptoe around for? These are the delicate reputations the system keeps clearing its throat to protect? A Wall Street lifer who can't explain his Epstein emails without tripping over himself, and an academic power broker who spent years pretending his association with Epstein was some innocent clerical error? These are the men whose good names require sealed files, careful wording, and institutional panic? Give me a break. If the truth about a dead sex trafficker's will is enough to embarrass you, then maybe the embarrassment isn't the problem — maybe it's the résumé. The idea that the public must be shielded from learning that Jeffrey Epstein trusted these guys with his estate isn't discretion, it's comedy. And not even good comedy — it's the kind that only plays in boardrooms where accountability has been dead longer than Epstein himself.to conact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Jeffrey Epstein named Larry Summers, Jes Staley as estate executors in draft wills | New York PostBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

JPMorgan Chase, which has been sued by women alleging the bank enabled Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking by maintaining him as a client for years, sought to compel the Manhattan District Attorney's office to turn over records as part of that lawsuit. The bank issued subpoenas to District Attorney Alvin Bragg's office for statements made by one of the alleged victims to a prosecutor and other documents that might be relevant to JPMorgan's defense and its own claims against former executive Jes Staley, who had a friendship with Epstein. JPMorgan argued these records were necessary for its case and that the DA's office could not shield them through claims of privilege or grand jury secrecy. A federal judge agreed that certain records must be provided to the bank, ruling that the DA's assertions of privilege did not apply to the specific statements sought.The bank's efforts to obtain these prosecutor records reflected its broader legal strategy to show it lacked liability and to push back against allegations that it turned a blind eye to Epstein's criminal conduct. By insisting on access to the DA's files, JPMorgan aimed to uncover information about what prosecutors knew and when, potentially undermining accusations that the bank failed to act despite warning signs. The ruling that the Manhattan DA's office must hand over some of these documents marked a significant moment in civil litigation tied to Epstein's network, highlighting how transactional discovery in Epstein-related lawsuits can reach into prosecutors' investigatory materials under certain legal conditions.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Recently unsealed Department of Justice records show that **Jeffrey Epstein named Jes Staley and Larry Summers as potential executors in earlier draft versions of his estate planning documents from the 2010s, though neither appeared in the final will he signed in 2019. According to the newly released materials under the Epstein Files Transparency Act, Staley first appeared in a 2012 draft as a “successor executor” and was later listed as a full executor in versions from 2013 and 2014, while Summers was named a successor executor in a 2014 revision. These designations would have given both men significant authority over Epstein's vast estate if the primary executors were unable or unwilling to serve — a striking inclusion given their high public profiles. However, in the final will drafted shortly before Epstein's death, both men were removed and are absent from the 2019 document that ultimately governs the estate.Oh these are the guys we're supposed to tiptoe around for? These are the delicate reputations the system keeps clearing its throat to protect? A Wall Street lifer who can't explain his Epstein emails without tripping over himself, and an academic power broker who spent years pretending his association with Epstein was some innocent clerical error? These are the men whose good names require sealed files, careful wording, and institutional panic? Give me a break. If the truth about a dead sex trafficker's will is enough to embarrass you, then maybe the embarrassment isn't the problem — maybe it's the résumé. The idea that the public must be shielded from learning that Jeffrey Epstein trusted these guys with his estate isn't discretion, it's comedy. And not even good comedy — it's the kind that only plays in boardrooms where accountability has been dead longer than Epstein himself.to conact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Jeffrey Epstein named Larry Summers, Jes Staley as estate executors in draft wills | New York PostBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

JPMorgan Chase, which has been sued by women alleging the bank enabled Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking by maintaining him as a client for years, sought to compel the Manhattan District Attorney's office to turn over records as part of that lawsuit. The bank issued subpoenas to District Attorney Alvin Bragg's office for statements made by one of the alleged victims to a prosecutor and other documents that might be relevant to JPMorgan's defense and its own claims against former executive Jes Staley, who had a friendship with Epstein. JPMorgan argued these records were necessary for its case and that the DA's office could not shield them through claims of privilege or grand jury secrecy. A federal judge agreed that certain records must be provided to the bank, ruling that the DA's assertions of privilege did not apply to the specific statements sought.The bank's efforts to obtain these prosecutor records reflected its broader legal strategy to show it lacked liability and to push back against allegations that it turned a blind eye to Epstein's criminal conduct. By insisting on access to the DA's files, JPMorgan aimed to uncover information about what prosecutors knew and when, potentially undermining accusations that the bank failed to act despite warning signs. The ruling that the Manhattan DA's office must hand over some of these documents marked a significant moment in civil litigation tied to Epstein's network, highlighting how transactional discovery in Epstein-related lawsuits can reach into prosecutors' investigatory materials under certain legal conditions.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

JPMorgan Chase, which has been sued by women alleging the bank enabled Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking by maintaining him as a client for years, sought to compel the Manhattan District Attorney's office to turn over records as part of that lawsuit. The bank issued subpoenas to District Attorney Alvin Bragg's office for statements made by one of the alleged victims to a prosecutor and other documents that might be relevant to JPMorgan's defense and its own claims against former executive Jes Staley, who had a friendship with Epstein. JPMorgan argued these records were necessary for its case and that the DA's office could not shield them through claims of privilege or grand jury secrecy. A federal judge agreed that certain records must be provided to the bank, ruling that the DA's assertions of privilege did not apply to the specific statements sought.The bank's efforts to obtain these prosecutor records reflected its broader legal strategy to show it lacked liability and to push back against allegations that it turned a blind eye to Epstein's criminal conduct. By insisting on access to the DA's files, JPMorgan aimed to uncover information about what prosecutors knew and when, potentially undermining accusations that the bank failed to act despite warning signs. The ruling that the Manhattan DA's office must hand over some of these documents marked a significant moment in civil litigation tied to Epstein's network, highlighting how transactional discovery in Epstein-related lawsuits can reach into prosecutors' investigatory materials under certain legal conditions.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

JPMorgan Chase, which has been sued by women alleging the bank enabled Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking by maintaining him as a client for years, sought to compel the Manhattan District Attorney's office to turn over records as part of that lawsuit. The bank issued subpoenas to District Attorney Alvin Bragg's office for statements made by one of the alleged victims to a prosecutor and other documents that might be relevant to JPMorgan's defense and its own claims against former executive Jes Staley, who had a friendship with Epstein. JPMorgan argued these records were necessary for its case and that the DA's office could not shield them through claims of privilege or grand jury secrecy. A federal judge agreed that certain records must be provided to the bank, ruling that the DA's assertions of privilege did not apply to the specific statements sought.The bank's efforts to obtain these prosecutor records reflected its broader legal strategy to show it lacked liability and to push back against allegations that it turned a blind eye to Epstein's criminal conduct. By insisting on access to the DA's files, JPMorgan aimed to uncover information about what prosecutors knew and when, potentially undermining accusations that the bank failed to act despite warning signs. The ruling that the Manhattan DA's office must hand over some of these documents marked a significant moment in civil litigation tied to Epstein's network, highlighting how transactional discovery in Epstein-related lawsuits can reach into prosecutors' investigatory materials under certain legal conditions.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Jes Staley, the former JPMorgan executive, filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit brought against him by survivors of Jeffrey Epstein's abuse. However, U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff denied this motion, allowing the case to proceed to pre-trial evidence gathering..Staley is accused of protecting Epstein during his tenure at JPMorgan, where he worked from 1979 to 2013. The bank claims that Staley was instrumental in maintaining Epstein's business relationship with JPMorgan despite Epstein's criminal activities. JPMorgan seeks to make Staley financially responsible for any damages the bank might incur from other related lawsuits and to recover compensation paid to him from 2006 to 2013. Staley has denied these allegations, stating that JPMorgan is using him as a scapegoat for its own supervisory failures and claims he was unaware of Epstein's criminal behavior​.(commercial at 8:14)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - MTD Mem. of Law - (11148357.16).docx (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Jes Staley, the former JPMorgan executive, filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit brought against him by survivors of Jeffrey Epstein's abuse. However, U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff denied this motion, allowing the case to proceed to pre-trial evidence gathering..Staley is accused of protecting Epstein during his tenure at JPMorgan, where he worked from 1979 to 2013. The bank claims that Staley was instrumental in maintaining Epstein's business relationship with JPMorgan despite Epstein's criminal activities. JPMorgan seeks to make Staley financially responsible for any damages the bank might incur from other related lawsuits and to recover compensation paid to him from 2006 to 2013. Staley has denied these allegations, stating that JPMorgan is using him as a scapegoat for its own supervisory failures and claims he was unaware of Epstein's criminal behavior​.(commercial at 8:14)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - MTD Mem. of Law - (11148357.16).docx (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

James Staley's reply memorandum in support of his motion for summary judgment argues that he should not be held liable in the case brought by the Government of the United States Virgin Islands and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. He asserts that there is no evidence proving his involvement in or knowledge of any alleged misconduct, specifically emphasizing that the claims lack material facts directly linking him to any fraudulent activities or conspiracies. Staley requests the court to dismiss the claims against him based on the lack of substantive evidence, arguing that the legal standards for summary judgment have been.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.591653.332.0.pdf (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Reports indicate that newly unsealed court records reveal Jeffrey Epstein's estate discovered a previously unknown cache of videos and photographs that may contain highly sensitive or potentially illegal material. According to the filings, the estate alerted federal authorities and legal representatives for survivors once the cache was located, and the material is now being reviewed under restricted access. The revelation has raised immediate questions about how such evidence remained undiscovered during prior raids and investigations, and why it is only surfacing years after Epstein's death, despite the public insistence that all relevant materials were already collected by law enforcement.These reports also note that the discovery aligns with long-standing claims from survivors and insiders that Epstein systematically recorded activities inside his properties, allegedly capturing compromising encounters involving high-profile individuals. Advocates have argued for years that Epstein used surveillance as leverage and protection, and the existence of a hidden archive intensifies speculation about who may be depicted on the recovered media. The finding further fuels concerns about transparency, chain of custody, and the possibility that critical evidence was concealed, misplaced, or withheld, leaving the public once again questioning whether the full truth surrounding Epstein's network has ever genuinely been revealed.Former Barclays CEO Jes Staley and his legal team forcefully rejected allegations made by JPMorgan Chase, describing them as “slanderous” and “baseless but serious.” The dispute emerged during litigation in Manhattan, where lawsuits filed by the U.S. Virgin Islands and a survivor identified as Jane Doe 1 accused Staley of having closely associated with Jeffrey Epstein's trafficking network, including claims that he exchanged hundreds of emails with Epstein containing disturbing content. Staley's lawyers argued that the accelerated trial schedule was unnecessary and unfair, insisting that he had been given insufficient time to prepare an adequate defense. JPMorgan, in turn, pursued legal action against Staley, seeking to recover compensation and asserting that he was central to decisions that allowed Epstein to operate as a client for years. The bank maintained that Staley was “inextricably linked” to the case, pointing to his long relationship with Epstein dating back to his tenure at JPMorgan in the early 2000s. Staley ultimately resigned as CEO of Barclays in 2021 amid scrutiny from UK regulators over his Epstein ties, and the legal confrontation highlighted the reputational fallout and lingering uncertainty surrounding the financial institutions and executives connected to Epstein's network.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Settlement agreements reached with Jeffrey Epstein's estate included a little-noticed carveout that allowed some survivors to continue pursuing claims against powerful figures connected to Epstein, even after accepting compensation. These provisions weren't accidental; they were crafted to preserve the ability to target individuals believed to have played a role beyond Epstein himself. At least one survivor signaled plans to use that pathway to bring legal action against high-profile Wall Street executives Leon Black and Jes Staley, asserting that accountability should extend to those who enabled, protected, or benefitted from Epstein's operations.The existence of these carveouts shifted the landscape of post-Epstein litigation. Instead of closing the book on the case, the settlements effectively opened new fronts — placing influential financiers back under scrutiny and raising the possibility of additional lawsuits that could broaden public understanding of the network surrounding Epstein. It reflected a larger sentiment among survivors: Epstein may be gone, but the system that supported him was far from dismantled, and there remained unfinished business in pursuit of the truth.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Reports indicate that newly unsealed court records reveal Jeffrey Epstein's estate discovered a previously unknown cache of videos and photographs that may contain highly sensitive or potentially illegal material. According to the filings, the estate alerted federal authorities and legal representatives for survivors once the cache was located, and the material is now being reviewed under restricted access. The revelation has raised immediate questions about how such evidence remained undiscovered during prior raids and investigations, and why it is only surfacing years after Epstein's death, despite the public insistence that all relevant materials were already collected by law enforcement.These reports also note that the discovery aligns with long-standing claims from survivors and insiders that Epstein systematically recorded activities inside his properties, allegedly capturing compromising encounters involving high-profile individuals. Advocates have argued for years that Epstein used surveillance as leverage and protection, and the existence of a hidden archive intensifies speculation about who may be depicted on the recovered media. The finding further fuels concerns about transparency, chain of custody, and the possibility that critical evidence was concealed, misplaced, or withheld, leaving the public once again questioning whether the full truth surrounding Epstein's network has ever genuinely been revealed.Former Barclays CEO Jes Staley and his legal team forcefully rejected allegations made by JPMorgan Chase, describing them as “slanderous” and “baseless but serious.” The dispute emerged during litigation in Manhattan, where lawsuits filed by the U.S. Virgin Islands and a survivor identified as Jane Doe 1 accused Staley of having closely associated with Jeffrey Epstein's trafficking network, including claims that he exchanged hundreds of emails with Epstein containing disturbing content. Staley's lawyers argued that the accelerated trial schedule was unnecessary and unfair, insisting that he had been given insufficient time to prepare an adequate defense. JPMorgan, in turn, pursued legal action against Staley, seeking to recover compensation and asserting that he was central to decisions that allowed Epstein to operate as a client for years. The bank maintained that Staley was “inextricably linked” to the case, pointing to his long relationship with Epstein dating back to his tenure at JPMorgan in the early 2000s. Staley ultimately resigned as CEO of Barclays in 2021 amid scrutiny from UK regulators over his Epstein ties, and the legal confrontation highlighted the reputational fallout and lingering uncertainty surrounding the financial institutions and executives connected to Epstein's network.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Settlement agreements reached with Jeffrey Epstein's estate included a little-noticed carveout that allowed some survivors to continue pursuing claims against powerful figures connected to Epstein, even after accepting compensation. These provisions weren't accidental; they were crafted to preserve the ability to target individuals believed to have played a role beyond Epstein himself. At least one survivor signaled plans to use that pathway to bring legal action against high-profile Wall Street executives Leon Black and Jes Staley, asserting that accountability should extend to those who enabled, protected, or benefitted from Epstein's operations.The existence of these carveouts shifted the landscape of post-Epstein litigation. Instead of closing the book on the case, the settlements effectively opened new fronts — placing influential financiers back under scrutiny and raising the possibility of additional lawsuits that could broaden public understanding of the network surrounding Epstein. It reflected a larger sentiment among survivors: Epstein may be gone, but the system that supported him was far from dismantled, and there remained unfinished business in pursuit of the truth.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Jeffrey Epstein's financial relationship with JPMorgan Chase ran deep — and lasted far longer than it ever should have. From the late 1990s until 2013, JPMorgan acted as Epstein's primary bank, managing his wealth, routing payments, and processing more than $1 billion in transactions even after his 2008 sex-crime conviction. Internal compliance teams repeatedly flagged Epstein's suspicious activity — massive monthly cash withdrawals, wire transfers to foreign accounts, and payments to women listed as “assistants.” Yet those warnings were ignored or overridden by senior executives, including Jes Staley, who maintained close personal contact with Epstein and allegedly visited him multiple times at his Manhattan townhouse and private island. The bank only cut ties in 2013, years after regulators had already raised red flags and long after Epstein's name had become synonymous with criminality.Subsequent lawsuits exposed just how intertwined the relationship was. The U.S. Virgin Islands and Epstein's victims both accused JPMorgan of enabling his trafficking operation by providing unrestricted financial access, arguing the bank “knowingly facilitated” his crimes to retain a lucrative client. The bank settled for $290 million with Epstein's victims and $75 million with the USVI, while internal communications revealed that top leadership — including Mary Erdoes and Jes Staley — had authority to drop Epstein but didn't. Emails showed Staley referring to Epstein with familiar tone and discussing visits to his properties. Even after his conviction, Epstein remained a valued client, reflecting how profit and personal connections outweighed compliance or morality. The scandal didn't just tarnish JPMorgan's reputation — it exposed how the world's most powerful financial institutions became complicit in shielding a predator for the sake of money and influence.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

The allegations surrounding Mary Erdoes, the CEO of JPMorgan Chase's Asset and Wealth Management division, focus on what she knew—and when—about Jeffrey Epstein's criminal conduct while the bank continued doing business with him. Epstein remained a JPMorgan client from the late 1990s until 2013, despite his 2008 sex crime conviction and repeated internal warnings about his activities. Internal compliance emails revealed that by 2006, Epstein's accounts were already raising red flags for suspicious activity, and by 2011, Erdoes was directly alerted to legal developments confirming his sex-offender status—she reportedly responded with a short “Oh boy.” Testimony and internal records suggest that Erdoes and then–general counsel Stephen Cutler held the authority to terminate Epstein's banking relationship but did not exercise it, even as other staff raised serious concerns. Multiple reports indicate she continued corresponding about Epstein's status and compliance reviews, demonstrating a level of awareness inconsistent with the bank's later public claims that knowledge of his misconduct was confined to lower levels.Critics argue this places Erdoes near the center of JPMorgan's failure to cut ties sooner, implying that the decision to keep Epstein as a client was not a mere oversight but a conscious choice by top management to preserve a lucrative relationship. During litigation brought by the U.S. Virgin Islands and Epstein's survivors, JPMorgan's internal communications were unsealed, showing that Epstein's financial activity had been reviewed annually and still cleared for continuation under Erdoes's division. Jes Staley, Epstein's primary contact within the bank, later testified that Erdoes “had full authority” to drop him but chose not to. Erdoes herself has denied any knowledge of Epstein's sex-trafficking operations, stating that her involvement was limited to compliance oversight and that Epstein was eventually off-boarded once risk assessments changed. Nevertheless, the accumulated evidence—from internal memos to executive testimony—has left a troubling picture of institutional willful blindness at the highest level of the world's largest bank.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Jeffrey Epstein's financial relationship with JPMorgan Chase ran deep — and lasted far longer than it ever should have. From the late 1990s until 2013, JPMorgan acted as Epstein's primary bank, managing his wealth, routing payments, and processing more than $1 billion in transactions even after his 2008 sex-crime conviction. Internal compliance teams repeatedly flagged Epstein's suspicious activity — massive monthly cash withdrawals, wire transfers to foreign accounts, and payments to women listed as “assistants.” Yet those warnings were ignored or overridden by senior executives, including Jes Staley, who maintained close personal contact with Epstein and allegedly visited him multiple times at his Manhattan townhouse and private island. The bank only cut ties in 2013, years after regulators had already raised red flags and long after Epstein's name had become synonymous with criminality.Subsequent lawsuits exposed just how intertwined the relationship was. The U.S. Virgin Islands and Epstein's victims both accused JPMorgan of enabling his trafficking operation by providing unrestricted financial access, arguing the bank “knowingly facilitated” his crimes to retain a lucrative client. The bank settled for $290 million with Epstein's victims and $75 million with the USVI, while internal communications revealed that top leadership — including Mary Erdoes and Jes Staley — had authority to drop Epstein but didn't. Emails showed Staley referring to Epstein with familiar tone and discussing visits to his properties. Even after his conviction, Epstein remained a valued client, reflecting how profit and personal connections outweighed compliance or morality. The scandal didn't just tarnish JPMorgan's reputation — it exposed how the world's most powerful financial institutions became complicit in shielding a predator for the sake of money and influence.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In Washington, U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren has officially urged the nation's top banking regulators — the Federal Reserve Board, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) — to launch public and private investigations into Staley's conduct while he was at J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. and later Barclays PLC. Warren's letter alleges that Staley helped shield Epstein's access to the banking system by intervening when internal red flags about Epstein's transactions were raised and that despite the banks settling for large sums in sister cases, Staley has so far avoided U.S. accountabilityAt the same time, U.S. lawsuits are advancing against Barclays and Staley over alleged investor mis-representation. A judge in Los Angeles denied Staley's request to dismiss a class-action claim that the bank and Staley misled investors about the true nature of his ties to Epstein after his arrest in 2019. The U.K.'s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) earlier found that Staley misled regulators by approving a letter stating his relationship with Epstein was not “close,” whereas email evidence showed they were in contact well beyond what the letter claimed.to contact  me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

The allegations surrounding Mary Erdoes, the CEO of JPMorgan Chase's Asset and Wealth Management division, focus on what she knew—and when—about Jeffrey Epstein's criminal conduct while the bank continued doing business with him. Epstein remained a JPMorgan client from the late 1990s until 2013, despite his 2008 sex crime conviction and repeated internal warnings about his activities. Internal compliance emails revealed that by 2006, Epstein's accounts were already raising red flags for suspicious activity, and by 2011, Erdoes was directly alerted to legal developments confirming his sex-offender status—she reportedly responded with a short “Oh boy.” Testimony and internal records suggest that Erdoes and then–general counsel Stephen Cutler held the authority to terminate Epstein's banking relationship but did not exercise it, even as other staff raised serious concerns. Multiple reports indicate she continued corresponding about Epstein's status and compliance reviews, demonstrating a level of awareness inconsistent with the bank's later public claims that knowledge of his misconduct was confined to lower levels.Critics argue this places Erdoes near the center of JPMorgan's failure to cut ties sooner, implying that the decision to keep Epstein as a client was not a mere oversight but a conscious choice by top management to preserve a lucrative relationship. During litigation brought by the U.S. Virgin Islands and Epstein's survivors, JPMorgan's internal communications were unsealed, showing that Epstein's financial activity had been reviewed annually and still cleared for continuation under Erdoes's division. Jes Staley, Epstein's primary contact within the bank, later testified that Erdoes “had full authority” to drop him but chose not to. Erdoes herself has denied any knowledge of Epstein's sex-trafficking operations, stating that her involvement was limited to compliance oversight and that Epstein was eventually off-boarded once risk assessments changed. Nevertheless, the accumulated evidence—from internal memos to executive testimony—has left a troubling picture of institutional willful blindness at the highest level of the world's largest bank.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In Washington, U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren has officially urged the nation's top banking regulators — the Federal Reserve Board, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) — to launch public and private investigations into Staley's conduct while he was at J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. and later Barclays PLC. Warren's letter alleges that Staley helped shield Epstein's access to the banking system by intervening when internal red flags about Epstein's transactions were raised and that despite the banks settling for large sums in sister cases, Staley has so far avoided U.S. accountabilityAt the same time, U.S. lawsuits are advancing against Barclays and Staley over alleged investor mis-representation. A judge in Los Angeles denied Staley's request to dismiss a class-action claim that the bank and Staley misled investors about the true nature of his ties to Epstein after his arrest in 2019. The U.K.'s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) earlier found that Staley misled regulators by approving a letter stating his relationship with Epstein was not “close,” whereas email evidence showed they were in contact well beyond what the letter claimed.to contact  me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Jes Staley, the former CEO of Barclays, has seen his reputation and career unravel after revelations of a deeper-than-declared relationship with Jeffrey Epstein surfaced. Regulators found that Staley had misled both Barclays' board and the UK's Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) by characterizing his bond with Epstein as merely professional, when a trove of emails and correspondence suggested otherwise. The FCA banned Staley from holding senior roles in the UK financial sector and fined him—punishments he challenged in court but largely failed to overturn.Beyond regulatory action, Staley and Barclays now face class-action lawsuits in the U.S. alleging investor deception: shareholders claim the bank and Staley downplayed Epstein links to protect stock prices. A judge recently rejected efforts to dismiss the case, allowing it to proceed. Meanwhile, Staley has publicly accused the FCA of trying to “destroy” him, insisting he mostly had a professional relationship with Epstein and that he was transparent with regulatorsto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Jes Staley, the former CEO of Barclays, has seen his reputation and career unravel after revelations of a deeper-than-declared relationship with Jeffrey Epstein surfaced. Regulators found that Staley had misled both Barclays' board and the UK's Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) by characterizing his bond with Epstein as merely professional, when a trove of emails and correspondence suggested otherwise. The FCA banned Staley from holding senior roles in the UK financial sector and fined him—punishments he challenged in court but largely failed to overturn.Beyond regulatory action, Staley and Barclays now face class-action lawsuits in the U.S. alleging investor deception: shareholders claim the bank and Staley downplayed Epstein links to protect stock prices. A judge recently rejected efforts to dismiss the case, allowing it to proceed. Meanwhile, Staley has publicly accused the FCA of trying to “destroy” him, insisting he mostly had a professional relationship with Epstein and that he was transparent with regulatorsto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The UK's Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) concluded that former Barclays CEO Jes Staley misled regulators about the depth of his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. The FCA determined that Staley “recklessly approved” misleading statements in a 2019 letter sent by Barclays, which downplayed his contact with Epstein and suggested their relationship had ended long before his tenure at the bank. In reality, correspondence revealed an ongoing relationship that continued for years after Epstein's first conviction. The FCA ruled that Staley's conduct demonstrated a lack of integrity and transparency expected of senior banking officials and issued a penalty totaling £1.8 million alongside a ban preventing him from holding any senior management or key function roles in the UK financial sector.After a lengthy appeal process, the UK Upper Tribunal upheld the FCA's decision in mid-2025, describing Staley's behavior as a “serious failure of judgment” and noting his lack of contrition throughout proceedings. While the tribunal slightly reduced the fine to £1.1 million, it agreed that Staley's conduct warranted a permanent ban from leadership positions within financial services. The ruling effectively ends Staley's career in banking and cements his downfall from one of the UK's most prominent financial figures to a cautionary tale of hubris, poor judgment, and the enduring fallout from his ties to Epstein.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Jes Staley, the former JPMorgan Chase executive and later CEO of Barclays, has been deeply entangled in the Jeffrey Epstein scandal due to his long personal and professional relationship with the disgraced financier. Court filings and released communications show Staley exchanged more than a thousand emails with Epstein between 2008 and 2012—many sent after Epstein's conviction for sex crimes. These emails included references to young women, cryptic language, and even visits to Epstein's residences, fueling suspicion about Staley's awareness of and proximity to Epstein's trafficking activities. The U.S. Virgin Islands and Epstein's survivors have both pointed to Staley as a key JPMorgan figure who allegedly enabled Epstein to maintain banking access, despite his notoriety.The fallout for Staley has been significant. In 2021, he abruptly resigned as Barclays' CEO amid ongoing regulatory probes into the extent of his ties to Epstein. JPMorgan itself has faced billion-dollar lawsuits over its Epstein connections, with Staley frequently cited as a central figure in decisions to retain Epstein as a client. Allegations suggest he provided cover and access that allowed Epstein to continue exploiting financial networks after his conviction. Though Staley denies knowledge of Epstein's crimes, the legal and reputational damage has been severe, leaving him portrayed as one of the highest-profile executives caught in the web of Epstein's influence.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Jes Staley, the former JPMorgan Chase executive and later CEO of Barclays, has been deeply entangled in the Jeffrey Epstein scandal due to his long personal and professional relationship with the disgraced financier. Court filings and released communications show Staley exchanged more than a thousand emails with Epstein between 2008 and 2012—many sent after Epstein's conviction for sex crimes. These emails included references to young women, cryptic language, and even visits to Epstein's residences, fueling suspicion about Staley's awareness of and proximity to Epstein's trafficking activities. The U.S. Virgin Islands and Epstein's survivors have both pointed to Staley as a key JPMorgan figure who allegedly enabled Epstein to maintain banking access, despite his notoriety.The fallout for Staley has been significant. In 2021, he abruptly resigned as Barclays' CEO amid ongoing regulatory probes into the extent of his ties to Epstein. JPMorgan itself has faced billion-dollar lawsuits over its Epstein connections, with Staley frequently cited as a central figure in decisions to retain Epstein as a client. Allegations suggest he provided cover and access that allowed Epstein to continue exploiting financial networks after his conviction. Though Staley denies knowledge of Epstein's crimes, the legal and reputational damage has been severe, leaving him portrayed as one of the highest-profile executives caught in the web of Epstein's influence.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Jes Staley, the former JPMorgan executive who later became CEO of Barclays, has alleged in court filings that he discussed Jeffrey Epstein directly with Jamie Dimon, including whether the bank should continue its relationship with Epstein after his 2008 conviction. According to Staley, Dimon was aware of Epstein's accounts and engaged in conversations about them, contradicting the narrative that JPMorgan's top leadership was in the dark. Dimon, however, has firmly denied this, testifying under oath that he never met Epstein, exchanged emails with him, or played any role in decisions about his accounts.Jes Staley, the former JPMorgan executive who later became CEO of Barclays, has alleged in court filings that he discussed Jeffrey Epstein directly with Jamie Dimon, including whether the bank should continue its relationship with Epstein after his 2008 conviction. According to Staley, Dimon was aware of Epstein's accounts and engaged in conversations about them, contradicting the narrative that JPMorgan's top leadership was in the dark. Dimon, however, has firmly denied this, testifying under oath that he never met Epstein, exchanged emails with him, or played any role in decisions about his accounts.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Jes Staley, the former JPMorgan executive who later became CEO of Barclays, has alleged in court filings that he discussed Jeffrey Epstein directly with Jamie Dimon, including whether the bank should continue its relationship with Epstein after his 2008 conviction. According to Staley, Dimon was aware of Epstein's accounts and engaged in conversations about them, contradicting the narrative that JPMorgan's top leadership was in the dark. Dimon, however, has firmly denied this, testifying under oath that he never met Epstein, exchanged emails with him, or played any role in decisions about his accounts.Jes Staley, the former JPMorgan executive who later became CEO of Barclays, has alleged in court filings that he discussed Jeffrey Epstein directly with Jamie Dimon, including whether the bank should continue its relationship with Epstein after his 2008 conviction. According to Staley, Dimon was aware of Epstein's accounts and engaged in conversations about them, contradicting the narrative that JPMorgan's top leadership was in the dark. Dimon, however, has firmly denied this, testifying under oath that he never met Epstein, exchanged emails with him, or played any role in decisions about his accounts.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Edward Bramson, through his investment vehicle Sherborne Investors, owned a ~5–6% stake in Barclays and repeatedly pushed the bank to address what he saw as governance failures tied to Jes Staley's past relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. Bramson publicly criticized Staley for not being sufficiently transparent about those links, particularly his time at JPMorgan, and demanded that the board take decisive action—either requiring Staley to be removed or revoking support for his reappointment as CEO. Bramson also raised questions about whether Staley had appropriately severed ties with Epstein, even after compliance/legal teams had urged him to do so.Over time, however, Staley managed to resist most of Bramson's pressure. By 2021 Bramson ended up selling Sherborne's entire stake in Barclays, backing down from his campaign to force structural changes to the investment banking division and leadership removal. While the regulatory investigations into Staley's Epstein connections continued and the issue caused reputational damage, Bramson was unable to gain enough shareholder or board support to force the changes he wanted.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Jes Staley's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein wasn't just a lapse in judgment—it was a full-blown embrace of depravity dressed up as “networking.” Staley wasn't dragged into Epstein's orbit; he signed up for the frequent flyer program. He flew to the island, sent creepy “Snow White” emails, and played the role of banker, buddy, and image-launderer for a convicted sex offender. This wasn't ignorance—it was arrogance. He knew exactly who Epstein was and decided that power, money, and access were worth more than decency, truth, or his own reputation.In the end, Staley will never be remembered for his banking career or “leadership.” His legacy is sealed as Epstein's enabler, lapdog, and fool—the man who polished the monster's image while survivors were left fighting for justice. He represents everything rotten about high finance: greed over morality, image over truth, connections over humanity. Staley thought he could walk hand-in-hand with Epstein and still be respected. Instead, he's a permanent cautionary tale of complicity, corruption, and cowardice.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Edward Bramson, through his investment vehicle Sherborne Investors, owned a ~5–6% stake in Barclays and repeatedly pushed the bank to address what he saw as governance failures tied to Jes Staley's past relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. Bramson publicly criticized Staley for not being sufficiently transparent about those links, particularly his time at JPMorgan, and demanded that the board take decisive action—either requiring Staley to be removed or revoking support for his reappointment as CEO. Bramson also raised questions about whether Staley had appropriately severed ties with Epstein, even after compliance/legal teams had urged him to do so.Over time, however, Staley managed to resist most of Bramson's pressure. By 2021 Bramson ended up selling Sherborne's entire stake in Barclays, backing down from his campaign to force structural changes to the investment banking division and leadership removal. While the regulatory investigations into Staley's Epstein connections continued and the issue caused reputational damage, Bramson was unable to gain enough shareholder or board support to force the changes he wanted.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Jes Staley's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein wasn't just a lapse in judgment—it was a full-blown embrace of depravity dressed up as “networking.” Staley wasn't dragged into Epstein's orbit; he signed up for the frequent flyer program. He flew to the island, sent creepy “Snow White” emails, and played the role of banker, buddy, and image-launderer for a convicted sex offender. This wasn't ignorance—it was arrogance. He knew exactly who Epstein was and decided that power, money, and access were worth more than decency, truth, or his own reputation.In the end, Staley will never be remembered for his banking career or “leadership.” His legacy is sealed as Epstein's enabler, lapdog, and fool—the man who polished the monster's image while survivors were left fighting for justice. He represents everything rotten about high finance: greed over morality, image over truth, connections over humanity. Staley thought he could walk hand-in-hand with Epstein and still be respected. Instead, he's a permanent cautionary tale of complicity, corruption, and cowardice.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Edward Bramson, through his investment fund Sherborne Investors, became a prominent activist shareholder in Barclays starting in 2018, with a stated goal of pushing the bank to scale back its investment banking arm and refocus on more stable retail operations and shareholder returns. Over time, Bramson intensified his criticism of Jes Staley, Barclays' CEO, especially after reports surfaced in 2020 that U.K. regulators (the Financial Conduct Authority and Prudential Regulation Authority) were investigating whether Staley had been sufficiently transparent about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. Bramson argued that the board's unanimous recommendation to re-elect Staley was “extremely ill-advised,” saying Staley's ties to Epstein had introduced reputational risk and that the board should reconsider whether he was “suitable” to lead Barclays.Despite Bramson's campaign, his efforts were unsuccessful. Barclays' strategy around its investment banking division showed better performance, especially during market volatility, which helped Staley defend his leadership. In 2021, Bramson sold his entire ~6% stake in Barclays, effectively ending the activist challenge. Staley remained CEO until regulators released findings from their probe into how he had characterized his Epstein ties, at which point he stepped down.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://www.ft.com/content/febd924d-fccf-4525-bc6a-c65460d394c3Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Jes Staley, the former CEO of Barclays, saw roughly £22 million in bonuses and deferred compensation frozen in 2022 as regulators dug into his ties to Jeffrey Epstein. The freeze included unvested share payouts and long-term incentive plans that Staley had been promised but had not yet received. The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) launched their review after concerns emerged over how Staley characterized his personal relationship with Epstein, a man whose reputation was already well-tarnished by his 2008 sex-offense conviction. The decision marked a significant step for Barclays, signaling just how seriously the bank's board and regulators were taking any whiff of reputational risk tied to Epstein.The matter didn't end with the freeze. In 2023, the FCA moved to ban Staley from holding senior positions in the UK financial industry, citing his misleading accounts of the Epstein connection. Alongside the ban, regulators initially proposed a £1.8 million fine, which was later reduced to about £1.1 million. Staley ultimately forfeited around £18 million in bonuses and deferred pay. For a man who had once been a Wall Street heavyweight, it was a public and financial fall from grace that demonstrated the long shadow Epstein's scandal continues to cast over those in his orbit.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://www.wsj.com/articles/barclays-profit-falls-on-slowdown-in-investment-banking-11645603658Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The financial aspect of the Jeffrey Epstein case continues to be one of the grearest mysteries of the criminal operation as the story continues to unfold.There are now two separate investigations occurring into his relationship with some of the biggest banks and bankers in the world.One is occurring in New York where regulators are looking at his financial dealings with Deutsche Bank and across the pond in England where Barclays and Jes Staley are getting the same treatment.To contact me:Bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/02/business/jeffrey-epstein-deutsche-bank.html

The USVI and JP Morgan Chase are back at inside of the courtroom where both sides have traded some seriously concerning allegations. In this latest salvo, we have the USVI alleging that the former JP Morgan CEO Doug "Sandy" Warner was the one that made the introduction of Jes Staley to Jeffrey Epstein in 2000. This goes along with the rest of the allegations that have been introduced by the USVI that have alleged that JP Morgan as an entity and not just Jes Staley are liable for the relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. In this episode, we take a look at the latest allegations and where the explosive lawsuit currently stands. to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Ex-JPMorgan CEO: Jes Staley should meet Jeffrey Epstein | FortuneBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.'s memorandum of law in opposition to James Edward Staley's motion to dismiss addresses several key points:Responsibility and Knowledge: JPMorgan argues that James Staley, as a senior executive, played a significant role in managing the relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. They assert that Staley was aware, or should have been aware, of Epstein's illegal activities and failed to take appropriate action to address or report these issues.Claims of Misconduct: The memorandum highlights specific allegations that Staley facilitated Epstein's criminal enterprise by maintaining and managing Epstein's accounts, even after red flags were raised. This includes allegations of willful blindness and failure to comply with legal and regulatory obligations.Legal Arguments: JPMorgan contends that Staley's motion to dismiss lacks merit because the claims against him are well-supported by evidence and legal precedent. They argue that the allegations, if proven true, establish a clear basis for Staley's liability in connection with Epstein's activities.Fiduciary Duties: The bank emphasizes that Staley breached his fiduciary duties by prioritizing the bank's financial interests over legal compliance and ethical standards. This breach of duty, JPMorgan argues, justifies the continuation of legal proceedings against him.Impact on the Bank: JPMorgan also addresses the reputational and financial damage caused by Staley's alleged misconduct. They claim that his actions have led to significant legal and regulatory scrutiny, which has harmed the bank's standing and operations.The opposition memorandum seeks to ensure that Staley remains a party to the lawsuit, holding him accountable for his alleged role in facilitating Epstein's criminal conductto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.591653.140.0.pdf (courtlistener.com)

JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.'s memorandum of law in opposition to James Edward Staley's motion to dismiss addresses several key points:Responsibility and Knowledge: JPMorgan argues that James Staley, as a senior executive, played a significant role in managing the relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. They assert that Staley was aware, or should have been aware, of Epstein's illegal activities and failed to take appropriate action to address or report these issues.Claims of Misconduct: The memorandum highlights specific allegations that Staley facilitated Epstein's criminal enterprise by maintaining and managing Epstein's accounts, even after red flags were raised. This includes allegations of willful blindness and failure to comply with legal and regulatory obligations.Legal Arguments: JPMorgan contends that Staley's motion to dismiss lacks merit because the claims against him are well-supported by evidence and legal precedent. They argue that the allegations, if proven true, establish a clear basis for Staley's liability in connection with Epstein's activities.Fiduciary Duties: The bank emphasizes that Staley breached his fiduciary duties by prioritizing the bank's financial interests over legal compliance and ethical standards. This breach of duty, JPMorgan argues, justifies the continuation of legal proceedings against him.Impact on the Bank: JPMorgan also addresses the reputational and financial damage caused by Staley's alleged misconduct. They claim that his actions have led to significant legal and regulatory scrutiny, which has harmed the bank's standing and operations.The opposition memorandum seeks to ensure that Staley remains a party to the lawsuit, holding him accountable for his alleged role in facilitating Epstein's criminal conductto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.591653.140.0.pdf (courtlistener.com)