Podcasts about usvi

The government of the U.S. Virgin Islands launched a sweeping civil investigation into Jeffrey Epstein to expose how he used the territory as a hub for sex trafficking, money laundering, and regulatory capture. The USVI lawsuit accused Epstein of operating a criminal enterprise from Little St. James with the knowledge, cooperation, or willful blindness of banks, service providers, and wealthy associates who enabled his operations. Investigators focused on Epstein's financial networks, travel logistics, staffing pipelines, and the flow of cash that sustained years of abuse far from mainland scrutiny. The case sought accountability not only for Epstein's crimes but for the ecosystem that protected him, arguing that his island operation could not have functioned without elite facilitators. While the USVI ultimately settled with Epstein's estate, the investigation cracked open the mechanics of impunity that allowed him to thrive. It reframed Epstein not as a lone monster, but as the beneficiary of systemic indulgence by powerful people.Within that context, Glenn Dubin emerges as a deeply troubling figure whose proximity to Epstein went far beyond casual acquaintance. Dubin and his family maintained a long-standing relationship with Epstein, including documented social interactions and connections that overlapped with the period of Epstein's known trafficking activity. While Dubin has denied wrongdoing, the USVI's investigative posture placed pressure on individuals like him precisely because their wealth and access helped normalize Epstein's presence in elite circles long after his crimes were public. Dubin's continued association with Epstein, even after the 2008 conviction, reflects the moral bankruptcy the investigation sought to expose: powerful men choosing convenience and influence over basic human decency. The criticism is not about legal guilt alone, but about judgment, responsibility, and complicity by silence. In the USVI's accounting, figures like Dubin represent how Epstein stayed protected—by people who knew enough to walk away, but didn't.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

The climb into the Epstein sewer continues in this one as we begin our look at the USVI's demand for a trial against the Epstein estate.(commercial at 7:38)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:GVI v Estate of Jeffrey E Epstein Et Al - DocumentCloudBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

The climb into the Epstein sewer continues in this one as we begin our look at the USVI's demand for a trial against the Epstein estate.(commercial at 7:38)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:GVI v Estate of Jeffrey E Epstein Et Al - DocumentCloudBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

The climb into the Epstein sewer continues in this one as we begin our look at the USVI's demand for a trial against the Epstein estate.(commercial at 7:38)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:GVI v Estate of Jeffrey E Epstein Et Al - DocumentCloudBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Denise George was removed as attorney general of the U.S. Virgin Islands at the end of December 2022, only days after she filed a sweeping federal lawsuit against JPMorgan Chase over the bank's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. George alleged that JPMorgan knowingly benefited from Epstein's business, ignored repeated warning signs and provided financial services that helped sustain his sex-trafficking enterprise. Her firing was especially striking because she had spent years pursuing Epstein's estate and associates, securing a settlement worth more than $105 million shortly before filing the JPMorgan case. Governor Albert Bryan Jr. announced that he had relieved George of her duties but initially offered no detailed public explanation for the decision.Reports indicated that Bryan had been frustrated because George filed the JPMorgan lawsuit without first consulting or informing him, and the governor's office denied that her removal was solely connected to the case. Still, the timing immediately fueled suspicion that George had been fired because her investigation was beginning to expose the relationship between Epstein, one of the world's largest banks and influential figures within the Virgin Islands. The lawsuit continued after her dismissal and ultimately produced a $75 million settlement with JPMorgan in 2023, but George was no longer in office to lead the case she initiated. Her sudden removal remains one of the most controversial episodes in the USVI's handling of Epstein, because the official explanation never fully dispelled concerns that political pressure and institutional self-protection played a role.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The climb into the Epstein sewer continues in this one as we begin our look at the USVI's demand for a trial against the Epstein estate.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:GVI v Estate of Jeffrey E Epstein Et Al - DocumentCloudBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

The climb into the Epstein sewer continues in this one as we begin our look at the USVI's demand for a trial against the Epstein estate.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:GVI v Estate of Jeffrey E Epstein Et Al - DocumentCloudBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

The climb into the Epstein sewer continues in this one as we begin our look at the USVI's demand for a trial against the Epstein estate.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:GVI v Estate of Jeffrey E Epstein Et Al - DocumentCloudBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

The climb into the Epstein sewer continues in this one as we begin our look at the USVI's demand for a trial against the Epstein estate.(commercial at 7:38)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:GVI v Estate of Jeffrey E Epstein Et Al - DocumentCloud

The climb into the Epstein sewer continues in this one as we begin our look at the USVI's demand for a trial against the Epstein estate.(commercial at 7:38)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:GVI v Estate of Jeffrey E Epstein Et Al - DocumentCloud

The climb into the Epstein sewer continues in this one as we begin our look at the USVI's demand for a trial against the Epstein estate.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:GVI v Estate of Jeffrey E Epstein Et Al - DocumentCloudBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

The climb into the Epstein sewer continues in this one as we begin our look at the USVI's demand for a trial against the Epstein estate.(commercial at 7:38)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:GVI v Estate of Jeffrey E Epstein Et Al - DocumentCloud

The climb into the Epstein sewer continues in this one as we begin our look at the USVI's demand for a trial against the Epstein estate.(commercial at 7:38)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:GVI v Estate of Jeffrey E Epstein Et Al - DocumentCloud

The climb into the Epstein sewer continues in this one as we begin our look at the USVI's demand for a trial against the Epstein estate.(commercial at 7:38)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:GVI v Estate of Jeffrey E Epstein Et Al - DocumentCloud

The climb into the Epstein sewer continues in this one as we begin our look at the USVI's demand for a trial against the Epstein estate.(commercial at 7:38)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:GVI v Estate of Jeffrey E Epstein Et Al - DocumentCloud

The climb into the Epstein sewer continues in this one as we begin our look at the USVI's demand for a trial against the Epstein estate.(commercial at 7:38)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:GVI v Estate of Jeffrey E Epstein Et Al - DocumentCloud

Epstein survivors and their attorneys have alleged that Jeffrey Epstein did not operate in the U.S. Virgin Islands as a lone predator hiding from the system, but as a wealthy, connected trafficker whose presence was tolerated, facilitated, and protected by people with power. In litigation and public filings, survivors have described Little St. James and Great St. James as isolated sites where young women and girls were abused, trafficked, controlled, and cut off from ordinary avenues of escape or help. The core allegation is that USVI officials, agencies, and politically connected figures either looked the other way, accepted Epstein's money and influence, or helped create the conditions that allowed him to keep operating for years. The USVI's own 2020 enforcement action against Epstein's estate accused his network of using the islands to conceal trafficking activity and avoid detection, while later survivor criticism pushed the point further: that this was not merely institutional failure, but a pattern of access, favors, silence, and protection.The allegations have centered on the idea that Epstein embedded himself into the territory through money, jobs, political access, permits, business entities, tax advantages, and relationships with influential locals, making him more than just a rich landowner with a private island. Survivors have argued that the USVI environment gave Epstein unusual freedom: private islands, staff, boats, aircraft, local business structures, and officials who allegedly failed to meaningfully challenge what was happening in plain sight. While not every official has been accused of a crime, and many allegations remain contested, the outrage is that Epstein's operation appears to have flourished in a place where too many people had reason to ask questions and too few people did. That is why survivors and critics frame the USVI piece of the Epstein story as more than geography; they see it as a case study in how elite money can bend a small jurisdiction around itself until abuse becomes protected by bureaucracy, influence, and silence.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

The Miami Herald reports that Jeffrey Epstein's obscure U.S. Virgin Islands offshore bank, Southern Country International, suddenly became active in 2019 after years of dormancy, moving tens of millions of dollars shortly before and after his arrest and death. The bank reportedly had no employees, held under $500,000 for years, and then processed more than $20 million between April and early July 2019. After Epstein died in federal custody on August 10, 2019, another $25 million moved through the bank, including funds from unknown sources. Investigators later examined a $15 million transfer from Epstein's Deutsche Bank account to Southern Country the day after his death, but the FBI closed the wire-fraud probe four years later without publicly explaining why.The story also lays out how Epstein obtained the offshore banking license in the first place, despite being a registered sex offender, and how Virgin Islands officials gave the bank unusual treatment, including waiving a requirement that it employ at least three people. The Herald notes that the bank may have been used in ways that violated territorial rules, because Southern Country was supposed to do business only with non-Virgin Islands people or companies, yet large transfers involved Epstein's Southern Trust Company, which was based in the territory. Compliance officers at traditional banks later flagged suspicious activity, with TD Bank reportedly saying some account funding appeared designed to disguise Epstein as the source of the money. The result is another unanswered Epstein money trail: a bank created in a friendly offshore jurisdiction, largely dormant for years, suddenly moving huge sums around the exact moment the walls were closing in.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Questions surround Epstein's USVI offshore bank activity | Miami Herald

The Miami Herald reports that Jeffrey Epstein's obscure U.S. Virgin Islands offshore bank, Southern Country International, suddenly became active in 2019 after years of dormancy, moving tens of millions of dollars shortly before and after his arrest and death. The bank reportedly had no employees, held under $500,000 for years, and then processed more than $20 million between April and early July 2019. After Epstein died in federal custody on August 10, 2019, another $25 million moved through the bank, including funds from unknown sources. Investigators later examined a $15 million transfer from Epstein's Deutsche Bank account to Southern Country the day after his death, but the FBI closed the wire-fraud probe four years later without publicly explaining why.The story also lays out how Epstein obtained the offshore banking license in the first place, despite being a registered sex offender, and how Virgin Islands officials gave the bank unusual treatment, including waiving a requirement that it employ at least three people. The Herald notes that the bank may have been used in ways that violated territorial rules, because Southern Country was supposed to do business only with non-Virgin Islands people or companies, yet large transfers involved Epstein's Southern Trust Company, which was based in the territory. Compliance officers at traditional banks later flagged suspicious activity, with TD Bank reportedly saying some account funding appeared designed to disguise Epstein as the source of the money. The result is another unanswered Epstein money trail: a bank created in a friendly offshore jurisdiction, largely dormant for years, suddenly moving huge sums around the exact moment the walls were closing in.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Questions surround Epstein's USVI offshore bank activity | Miami HeraldBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Epstein survivors and their attorneys have alleged that Jeffrey Epstein did not operate in the U.S. Virgin Islands as a lone predator hiding from the system, but as a wealthy, connected trafficker whose presence was tolerated, facilitated, and protected by people with power. In litigation and public filings, survivors have described Little St. James and Great St. James as isolated sites where young women and girls were abused, trafficked, controlled, and cut off from ordinary avenues of escape or help. The core allegation is that USVI officials, agencies, and politically connected figures either looked the other way, accepted Epstein's money and influence, or helped create the conditions that allowed him to keep operating for years. The USVI's own 2020 enforcement action against Epstein's estate accused his network of using the islands to conceal trafficking activity and avoid detection, while later survivor criticism pushed the point further: that this was not merely institutional failure, but a pattern of access, favors, silence, and protection.The allegations have centered on the idea that Epstein embedded himself into the territory through money, jobs, political access, permits, business entities, tax advantages, and relationships with influential locals, making him more than just a rich landowner with a private island. Survivors have argued that the USVI environment gave Epstein unusual freedom: private islands, staff, boats, aircraft, local business structures, and officials who allegedly failed to meaningfully challenge what was happening in plain sight. While not every official has been accused of a crime, and many allegations remain contested, the outrage is that Epstein's operation appears to have flourished in a place where too many people had reason to ask questions and too few people did. That is why survivors and critics frame the USVI piece of the Epstein story as more than geography; they see it as a case study in how elite money can bend a small jurisdiction around itself until abuse becomes protected by bureaucracy, influence, and silence.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The Miami Herald reports that Jeffrey Epstein's obscure U.S. Virgin Islands offshore bank, Southern Country International, suddenly became active in 2019 after years of dormancy, moving tens of millions of dollars shortly before and after his arrest and death. The bank reportedly had no employees, held under $500,000 for years, and then processed more than $20 million between April and early July 2019. After Epstein died in federal custody on August 10, 2019, another $25 million moved through the bank, including funds from unknown sources. Investigators later examined a $15 million transfer from Epstein's Deutsche Bank account to Southern Country the day after his death, but the FBI closed the wire-fraud probe four years later without publicly explaining why.The story also lays out how Epstein obtained the offshore banking license in the first place, despite being a registered sex offender, and how Virgin Islands officials gave the bank unusual treatment, including waiving a requirement that it employ at least three people. The Herald notes that the bank may have been used in ways that violated territorial rules, because Southern Country was supposed to do business only with non-Virgin Islands people or companies, yet large transfers involved Epstein's Southern Trust Company, which was based in the territory. Compliance officers at traditional banks later flagged suspicious activity, with TD Bank reportedly saying some account funding appeared designed to disguise Epstein as the source of the money. The result is another unanswered Epstein money trail: a bank created in a friendly offshore jurisdiction, largely dormant for years, suddenly moving huge sums around the exact moment the walls were closing in.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Questions surround Epstein's USVI offshore bank activity | Miami HeraldBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Stacey Plaskett, Democrat and Delegate to Congress from the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI), has been actively seeking the dismissal of a lawsuit filed by survivors of Jeffrey Epstein. The lawsuit, which targets various officials from the USVI, accuses them of enabling Epstein's sex trafficking activities. Plaskett has described the suit as "legally and factually frivolous" and argues that the claims against her lack any substantial basis, suggesting that her inclusion is an attempt to unfairly malign her reputation due to her high profile​.Plaskett's legal team contends that the lawsuit does not meet the necessary pleading standards and that there is no evidence connecting her to Epstein's criminal activities. They argue that her interactions with Epstein, including accepting campaign donations from him, do not imply any knowledge or involvement in his illegal actions​. Plaskett asserts that the lawsuit is a scattershot attempt at monetary gain, aiming to exploit her public status to increase the case's visibility and pressure for a settlement​.What do the facts tell us?   Let's dive in and find out.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 15154228_7.docx (courtlistener.com)

Stacey Plaskett, Democrat and Delegate to Congress from the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI), has been actively seeking the dismissal of a lawsuit filed by survivors of Jeffrey Epstein. The lawsuit, which targets various officials from the USVI, accuses them of enabling Epstein's sex trafficking activities. Plaskett has described the suit as "legally and factually frivolous" and argues that the claims against her lack any substantial basis, suggesting that her inclusion is an attempt to unfairly malign her reputation due to her high profile​.Plaskett's legal team contends that the lawsuit does not meet the necessary pleading standards and that there is no evidence connecting her to Epstein's criminal activities. They argue that her interactions with Epstein, including accepting campaign donations from him, do not imply any knowledge or involvement in his illegal actions​. Plaskett asserts that the lawsuit is a scattershot attempt at monetary gain, aiming to exploit her public status to increase the case's visibility and pressure for a settlement​.What do the facts tell us?   Let's dive in and find out.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 15154228_7.docx (courtlistener.com)

Jes Staley's role at JPMorgan was not simply that of a banker who happened to know Jeffrey Epstein; according to lawsuits, regulatory findings, and later court testimony, he functioned as Epstein's internal champion. As head of JPMorgan's private bank, Staley maintained a close relationship with Epstein even after Epstein's 2008 conviction, exchanging more than 1,000 emails with him and continuing to treat him as a valuable client and personal contact. The core allegation is that when compliance concerns, suspicious withdrawals, and human-trafficking red flags arose around Epstein's accounts, Staley pushed the bank to keep him rather than cut him loose. In other words, Epstein had someone inside the institution with status, access, and credibility who could vouch for him, smooth over concerns, and help keep the relationship alive longer than it should have survived.That lobbying mattered because JPMorgan was not just holding a checking account for some random rich man; it was providing banking infrastructure to a convicted sex offender whose financial activity should have set off alarms. The U.S. Virgin Islands and Epstein survivors argued that JPMorgan benefited from Epstein while missing or ignoring signs that his money was connected to abuse and trafficking, and JPMorgan later sued Staley, accusing him of concealing what he knew and putting Epstein's interests ahead of the bank's. Staley has denied wrongdoing and has said he did not know about Epstein's crimes, but regulators later concluded that he misled Barclays about the depth of his Epstein relationship, and JPMorgan ultimately paid $75 million to settle the USVI case while also settling with Staley. So the picture that emerges is of Epstein using Staley as a powerful institutional shield: a senior banker who gave him credibility, protected the client relationship, and helped keep the doors open at one of the most important banks in the world.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Stacey Plaskett, Democrat and Delegate to Congress from the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI), has been actively seeking the dismissal of a lawsuit filed by survivors of Jeffrey Epstein. The lawsuit, which targets various officials from the USVI, accuses them of enabling Epstein's sex trafficking activities. Plaskett has described the suit as "legally and factually frivolous" and argues that the claims against her lack any substantial basis, suggesting that her inclusion is an attempt to unfairly malign her reputation due to her high profile​.Plaskett's legal team contends that the lawsuit does not meet the necessary pleading standards and that there is no evidence connecting her to Epstein's criminal activities. They argue that her interactions with Epstein, including accepting campaign donations from him, do not imply any knowledge or involvement in his illegal actions​. Plaskett asserts that the lawsuit is a scattershot attempt at monetary gain, aiming to exploit her public status to increase the case's visibility and pressure for a settlement​.What do the facts tell us?   Let's dive in and find out.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 15154228_7.docx (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Stacey Plaskett, Democrat and Delegate to Congress from the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI), has been actively seeking the dismissal of a lawsuit filed by survivors of Jeffrey Epstein. The lawsuit, which targets various officials from the USVI, accuses them of enabling Epstein's sex trafficking activities. Plaskett has described the suit as "legally and factually frivolous" and argues that the claims against her lack any substantial basis, suggesting that her inclusion is an attempt to unfairly malign her reputation due to her high profile​.Plaskett's legal team contends that the lawsuit does not meet the necessary pleading standards and that there is no evidence connecting her to Epstein's criminal activities. They argue that her interactions with Epstein, including accepting campaign donations from him, do not imply any knowledge or involvement in his illegal actions​. Plaskett asserts that the lawsuit is a scattershot attempt at monetary gain, aiming to exploit her public status to increase the case's visibility and pressure for a settlement​.What do the facts tell us?   Let's dive in and find out.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 15154228_7.docx (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Denise George tried to attack Jeffrey Epstein's operation through the money trail, not just the sex-abuse allegations, by using the U.S. Virgin Islands' civil enforcement power to subpoena banks and financial institutions that handled Epstein's accounts, entities, trusts, charities, and shell companies. Her office sought records from major institutions including JPMorgan Chase, Deutsche Bank, Citibank, and others, looking for account records, transaction details, communications, cash movements, and the financial architecture around Epstein's estate and business entities. George later sued JPMorgan, accusing the bank of helping Epstein finance and conceal his trafficking operation, and her office had already reached a settlement of more than $105 million with Epstein's estate and related defendants. In other words, she was trying to prove that Epstein's crimes were not just enabled by recruiters and household staff, but by banks, lawyers, accountants, and institutions that moved the money and ignored the warning signs.A separate financial trail later raised similar questions around Ghislaine Maxwell. Reuters reported in 2026 that UBS helped move money connected to Maxwell before her arrest, including funds that ultimately helped purchase her secluded New Hampshire hideout, even after UBS had received a grand jury subpoena seeking information about her financial dealings in a child-sex-trafficking investigation. UBS had told Maxwell it would close her accounts, but documents showed millions still moved through the system before the shutdown was complete. That is what makes the institutional side of the Epstein story so damning: while George was trying to force major banks to explain how Epstein's money flowed for years, other institutions were still handling Maxwell-linked money in the aftermath, showing once again how elite clients could remain bankable long after the red flags should have been impossible to miss.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Denise George tried to attack Jeffrey Epstein's operation through the money trail, not just the sex-abuse allegations, by using the U.S. Virgin Islands' civil enforcement power to subpoena banks and financial institutions that handled Epstein's accounts, entities, trusts, charities, and shell companies. Her office sought records from major institutions including JPMorgan Chase, Deutsche Bank, Citibank, and others, looking for account records, transaction details, communications, cash movements, and the financial architecture around Epstein's estate and business entities. George later sued JPMorgan, accusing the bank of helping Epstein finance and conceal his trafficking operation, and her office had already reached a settlement of more than $105 million with Epstein's estate and related defendants. In other words, she was trying to prove that Epstein's crimes were not just enabled by recruiters and household staff, but by banks, lawyers, accountants, and institutions that moved the money and ignored the warning signs.A separate financial trail later raised similar questions around Ghislaine Maxwell. Reuters reported in 2026 that UBS helped move money connected to Maxwell before her arrest, including funds that ultimately helped purchase her secluded New Hampshire hideout, even after UBS had received a grand jury subpoena seeking information about her financial dealings in a child-sex-trafficking investigation. UBS had told Maxwell it would close her accounts, but documents showed millions still moved through the system before the shutdown was complete. That is what makes the institutional side of the Epstein story so damning: while George was trying to force major banks to explain how Epstein's money flowed for years, other institutions were still handling Maxwell-linked money in the aftermath, showing once again how elite clients could remain bankable long after the red flags should have been impossible to miss.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

The lawsuit filed by Epstein's survivors against the U.S. Virgin Islands and its political leadership was a direct attempt to hold the government itself accountable for what the plaintiffs describe as years of willful blindness, facilitation, and corruption that allowed Epstein's trafficking operation to flourish openly on USVI soil. In the complaint, survivors allege that senior Virgin Islands officials knew Epstein was sexually abusing and trafficking underage girls at Little St. James and related properties, yet continued to provide him with extraordinary protections. According to the suit, those protections included favorable tax treatment, lax regulatory oversight, assistance with immigration and travel issues, and a general refusal to investigate credible reports of abuse. The survivors frame the USVI not as a passive bystander, but as an active enabler whose officials allegedly chose Epstein's money and political influence over the safety of children.In context, the lawsuit is significant because it shifts the focus away from Epstein as a lone criminal and squarely onto the governmental systems that, according to the plaintiffs, made his crimes possible for decades. The survivors argue that Epstein's operation could not have functioned at the scale it did without institutional cooperation or deliberate neglect, particularly in a small jurisdiction where his activities were widely known. By naming politicians and government entities, the suit seeks to pierce the long-standing narrative that Epstein merely “slipped through the cracks,” instead asserting that the cracks were deliberately widened for him. The case is as much about exposing how power protects itself as it is about compensation, positioning the USVI as a test case for whether governments can be held civilly liable for enabling large-scale sexual exploitation through corruption, indifference, and abuse of authority.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

The U.S. Virgin Islands' battle against Jeffrey Epstein's estate was contentious from the beginning because it was not just a fight over money; it was a fight over accountability, secrecy, and control of Epstein's remaining assets. After Epstein's death, the territory accused his estate, companies, and representatives of helping preserve the infrastructure that allowed him to abuse and traffic girls and young women on Little St. James and Great St. James. The USVI sought to freeze assets, claw back profits, obtain records, and force the estate to answer for how Epstein used the islands as a base of operations. The estate, meanwhile, pushed back by arguing that the government was overreaching, that many claims should be handled through the victim compensation process, and that continued litigation would drain resources that could otherwise go to claimants.The fight became even more heated because the USVI was also under scrutiny for its own failures and contradictions. Epstein had received generous tax benefits and operated openly in the territory for years, which raised obvious questions about what local officials knew, ignored, or allowed. Still, then-Attorney General Denise George pressed aggressively, eventually reaching a settlement worth more than $105 million, plus half the proceeds from the sale of Little St. James and additional money for environmental remediation. That settlement was significant, but it did not erase the larger tension: the USVI was trying to hold Epstein's estate accountable while also answering for how Epstein was able to build, fund, and protect so much of his operation in the territory in the first place.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Denise George tried to attack Jeffrey Epstein's operation through the money trail, not just the sex-abuse allegations, by using the U.S. Virgin Islands' civil enforcement power to subpoena banks and financial institutions that handled Epstein's accounts, entities, trusts, charities, and shell companies. Her office sought records from major institutions including JPMorgan Chase, Deutsche Bank, Citibank, and others, looking for account records, transaction details, communications, cash movements, and the financial architecture around Epstein's estate and business entities. George later sued JPMorgan, accusing the bank of helping Epstein finance and conceal his trafficking operation, and her office had already reached a settlement of more than $105 million with Epstein's estate and related defendants. In other words, she was trying to prove that Epstein's crimes were not just enabled by recruiters and household staff, but by banks, lawyers, accountants, and institutions that moved the money and ignored the warning signs.A separate financial trail later raised similar questions around Ghislaine Maxwell. Reuters reported in 2026 that UBS helped move money connected to Maxwell before her arrest, including funds that ultimately helped purchase her secluded New Hampshire hideout, even after UBS had received a grand jury subpoena seeking information about her financial dealings in a child-sex-trafficking investigation. UBS had told Maxwell it would close her accounts, but documents showed millions still moved through the system before the shutdown was complete. That is what makes the institutional side of the Epstein story so damning: while George was trying to force major banks to explain how Epstein's money flowed for years, other institutions were still handling Maxwell-linked money in the aftermath, showing once again how elite clients could remain bankable long after the red flags should have been impossible to miss.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The lawsuit filed by Epstein's survivors against the U.S. Virgin Islands and its political leadership was a direct attempt to hold the government itself accountable for what the plaintiffs describe as years of willful blindness, facilitation, and corruption that allowed Epstein's trafficking operation to flourish openly on USVI soil. In the complaint, survivors allege that senior Virgin Islands officials knew Epstein was sexually abusing and trafficking underage girls at Little St. James and related properties, yet continued to provide him with extraordinary protections. According to the suit, those protections included favorable tax treatment, lax regulatory oversight, assistance with immigration and travel issues, and a general refusal to investigate credible reports of abuse. The survivors frame the USVI not as a passive bystander, but as an active enabler whose officials allegedly chose Epstein's money and political influence over the safety of children.In context, the lawsuit is significant because it shifts the focus away from Epstein as a lone criminal and squarely onto the governmental systems that, according to the plaintiffs, made his crimes possible for decades. The survivors argue that Epstein's operation could not have functioned at the scale it did without institutional cooperation or deliberate neglect, particularly in a small jurisdiction where his activities were widely known. By naming politicians and government entities, the suit seeks to pierce the long-standing narrative that Epstein merely “slipped through the cracks,” instead asserting that the cracks were deliberately widened for him. The case is as much about exposing how power protects itself as it is about compensation, positioning the USVI as a test case for whether governments can be held civilly liable for enabling large-scale sexual exploitation through corruption, indifference, and abuse of authority.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

The lawsuit filed by Epstein's survivors against the U.S. Virgin Islands and its political leadership was a direct attempt to hold the government itself accountable for what the plaintiffs describe as years of willful blindness, facilitation, and corruption that allowed Epstein's trafficking operation to flourish openly on USVI soil. In the complaint, survivors allege that senior Virgin Islands officials knew Epstein was sexually abusing and trafficking underage girls at Little St. James and related properties, yet continued to provide him with extraordinary protections. According to the suit, those protections included favorable tax treatment, lax regulatory oversight, assistance with immigration and travel issues, and a general refusal to investigate credible reports of abuse. The survivors frame the USVI not as a passive bystander, but as an active enabler whose officials allegedly chose Epstein's money and political influence over the safety of children.In context, the lawsuit is significant because it shifts the focus away from Epstein as a lone criminal and squarely onto the governmental systems that, according to the plaintiffs, made his crimes possible for decades. The survivors argue that Epstein's operation could not have functioned at the scale it did without institutional cooperation or deliberate neglect, particularly in a small jurisdiction where his activities were widely known. By naming politicians and government entities, the suit seeks to pierce the long-standing narrative that Epstein merely “slipped through the cracks,” instead asserting that the cracks were deliberately widened for him. The case is as much about exposing how power protects itself as it is about compensation, positioning the USVI as a test case for whether governments can be held civilly liable for enabling large-scale sexual exploitation through corruption, indifference, and abuse of authority.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Jamie Dimon was pulled directly into the U.S. Virgin Islands' lawsuit against JPMorgan because he had served as the bank's chief executive during most of the period when Jeffrey Epstein remained a valued client despite his 2008 conviction and repeated internal warnings about his conduct and financial activity. The Virgin Islands alleged that JPMorgan knowingly benefited from Epstein's business, ignored red flags and continued supplying the banking infrastructure that helped sustain his trafficking operation. As the bank's most powerful executive, Dimon was ordered to sit for a deposition about what he knew, when senior management learned of the concerns surrounding Epstein and why the relationship was not terminated until 2013.During his deposition, Dimon said he had never met or spoken with Epstein and did not remember being informed about him while Epstein was a customer. That testimony became a major point of contention because evidence showed that other senior JPMorgan figures—including Jes Staley and Mary Erdoes—were involved in discussions concerning Epstein, while compliance personnel had repeatedly raised concerns. The Virgin Islands unsuccessfully sought to question Dimon a second time after obtaining additional evidence, but his testimony still placed his leadership under intense scrutiny and raised questions about how such a controversial client could remain at the bank without the chief executive knowing. JPMorgan ultimately paid $75 million to settle the Virgin Islands' claims without admitting liability, in addition to a separate $290 million settlement with Epstein's victims.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Jamie Dimon was pulled directly into the U.S. Virgin Islands' lawsuit against JPMorgan because he had served as the bank's chief executive during most of the period when Jeffrey Epstein remained a valued client despite his 2008 conviction and repeated internal warnings about his conduct and financial activity. The Virgin Islands alleged that JPMorgan knowingly benefited from Epstein's business, ignored red flags and continued supplying the banking infrastructure that helped sustain his trafficking operation. As the bank's most powerful executive, Dimon was ordered to sit for a deposition about what he knew, when senior management learned of the concerns surrounding Epstein and why the relationship was not terminated until 2013.During his deposition, Dimon said he had never met or spoken with Epstein and did not remember being informed about him while Epstein was a customer. That testimony became a major point of contention because evidence showed that other senior JPMorgan figures—including Jes Staley and Mary Erdoes—were involved in discussions concerning Epstein, while compliance personnel had repeatedly raised concerns. The Virgin Islands unsuccessfully sought to question Dimon a second time after obtaining additional evidence, but his testimony still placed his leadership under intense scrutiny and raised questions about how such a controversial client could remain at the bank without the chief executive knowing. JPMorgan ultimately paid $75 million to settle the Virgin Islands' claims without admitting liability, in addition to a separate $290 million settlement with Epstein's victims.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

The lawsuit filed by Epstein's survivors against the U.S. Virgin Islands and its political leadership was a direct attempt to hold the government itself accountable for what the plaintiffs describe as years of willful blindness, facilitation, and corruption that allowed Epstein's trafficking operation to flourish openly on USVI soil. In the complaint, survivors allege that senior Virgin Islands officials knew Epstein was sexually abusing and trafficking underage girls at Little St. James and related properties, yet continued to provide him with extraordinary protections. According to the suit, those protections included favorable tax treatment, lax regulatory oversight, assistance with immigration and travel issues, and a general refusal to investigate credible reports of abuse. The survivors frame the USVI not as a passive bystander, but as an active enabler whose officials allegedly chose Epstein's money and political influence over the safety of children.In context, the lawsuit is significant because it shifts the focus away from Epstein as a lone criminal and squarely onto the governmental systems that, according to the plaintiffs, made his crimes possible for decades. The survivors argue that Epstein's operation could not have functioned at the scale it did without institutional cooperation or deliberate neglect, particularly in a small jurisdiction where his activities were widely known. By naming politicians and government entities, the suit seeks to pierce the long-standing narrative that Epstein merely “slipped through the cracks,” instead asserting that the cracks were deliberately widened for him. The case is as much about exposing how power protects itself as it is about compensation, positioning the USVI as a test case for whether governments can be held civilly liable for enabling large-scale sexual exploitation through corruption, indifference, and abuse of authority.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Virgin Islands Safe Gun Owners founder Kosei Ohno is back with the outrageous details of passage of a sweeping gun control bill that could ban the sale of all semi-automatic firearms, possession of suppressors, and a host of other infringements to our 2A rights.

In pursuing civil enforcement under the Virgin Islands' Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (CICO), former U.S. Virgin Islands Attorney General Denise George didn't just target Jeffrey Epstein's estate and his immediate corporate structures — she cast a far wider net that reached into major financial institutions she believed enabled and obscured his criminal enterprise. After securing a blockbuster $105 million settlement with Epstein's estate and co-defendants for human trafficking, child exploitation, fraud, and corrupt use of tax incentives, her office issued subpoenas to multiple banks, including JPMorgan Chase, Deutsche Bank, and Citibank, seeking detailed account records, wire transfers, and communications related to Epstein's myriad corporations, trusts, and financial vehicles. These subpoenas were intended to trace how funds moved through Epstein's networks and whether banks knowingly facilitated or failed to flag suspicious activity tied to his sex-trafficking scheme.George then took the extraordinary step of filing a federal lawsuit against JPMorgan Chase, accusing the bank of “knowingly facilitati[ng], sustain[ing], and conceal[ing]” Epstein's human trafficking operations and alleging it financially benefitted from maintaining and managing his accounts over years. The complaint portrayed JPMorgan as indispensable to Epstein's ability to pay recruiters and victims, maintain secrecy, and profit from his criminal enterprise — claims that expanded the legal exposure beyond individuals directly implicated in abuse to the financial systems that kept Epstein's operation solvent. Although Deutsche Bank was not named as a defendant in George's suit, the broader investigative push signaled an effort to hold major financial players accountable for oversight failures or complicity in facilitating one of the most notorious trafficking networks in recent history.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Jamie Dimon was pulled directly into the U.S. Virgin Islands' lawsuit against JPMorgan because he had served as the bank's chief executive during most of the period when Jeffrey Epstein remained a valued client despite his 2008 conviction and repeated internal warnings about his conduct and financial activity. The Virgin Islands alleged that JPMorgan knowingly benefited from Epstein's business, ignored red flags and continued supplying the banking infrastructure that helped sustain his trafficking operation. As the bank's most powerful executive, Dimon was ordered to sit for a deposition about what he knew, when senior management learned of the concerns surrounding Epstein and why the relationship was not terminated until 2013.During his deposition, Dimon said he had never met or spoken with Epstein and did not remember being informed about him while Epstein was a customer. That testimony became a major point of contention because evidence showed that other senior JPMorgan figures—including Jes Staley and Mary Erdoes—were involved in discussions concerning Epstein, while compliance personnel had repeatedly raised concerns. The Virgin Islands unsuccessfully sought to question Dimon a second time after obtaining additional evidence, but his testimony still placed his leadership under intense scrutiny and raised questions about how such a controversial client could remain at the bank without the chief executive knowing. JPMorgan ultimately paid $75 million to settle the Virgin Islands' claims without admitting liability, in addition to a separate $290 million settlement with Epstein's victims.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Virgin Islands Safe Gun Owners founder Kosei Ohno details the latest attempts by USVI politicians to criminalize the right to keep and bear arms, and how VISGO is fighting back in defense of the Second Amendment.

The battle between JP Morgan and the U.S. Virgin Islands over Jeffrey Epstein became one of the ugliest institutional fights to come out of the Epstein scandal because both sides were effectively accusing the other of enabling him. The USVI sued JP Morgan by arguing that the bank was not merely a passive financial institution but a crucial piece of Epstein's machinery, claiming it processed huge sums of money for him, ignored glaring red flags, allowed cash withdrawals and payments tied to his abuse network, and continued servicing him long after his sex-crime history was public. The territory's theory was that Epstein's operation depended on respectable financial plumbing, and that JP Morgan supplied it while collecting fees, protecting a wealthy client, and looking away from the obvious. JP Morgan denied knowingly helping Epstein's crimes and fired back by pointing the finger at the USVI itself, arguing that territorial officials gave Epstein tax benefits, political access, licenses, permits, and room to operate on Little St. James while accepting his money and influence.That is what made the litigation so brutal: it was not just about Epstein, but about which institution wanted the court to believe the other side had dirtier hands. The USVI tried to frame JP Morgan as the bank that kept Epstein financially alive; JP Morgan tried to frame the USVI as the jurisdiction that let him build his island kingdom in plain sight. Discovery dragged major names into the fight, including former JP Morgan executive Jes Staley, whose relationship with Epstein became a central part of the bank's internal blame game. In the end, JP Morgan agreed in September 2023 to pay $75 million to settle the USVI case, while admitting no wrongdoing, after separately agreeing to a $290 million settlement with Epstein victims. The settlement did not answer every question, but it did confirm the larger reality: Epstein's operation was not just protected by private secrecy, but by a whole ecosystem of banks, lawyers, officials, enablers, and institutions that later tried to shove the blame onto each other once the paper trail became impossible to bury.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

The battle between JP Morgan and the U.S. Virgin Islands over Jeffrey Epstein became one of the ugliest institutional fights to come out of the Epstein scandal because both sides were effectively accusing the other of enabling him. The USVI sued JP Morgan by arguing that the bank was not merely a passive financial institution but a crucial piece of Epstein's machinery, claiming it processed huge sums of money for him, ignored glaring red flags, allowed cash withdrawals and payments tied to his abuse network, and continued servicing him long after his sex-crime history was public. The territory's theory was that Epstein's operation depended on respectable financial plumbing, and that JP Morgan supplied it while collecting fees, protecting a wealthy client, and looking away from the obvious. JP Morgan denied knowingly helping Epstein's crimes and fired back by pointing the finger at the USVI itself, arguing that territorial officials gave Epstein tax benefits, political access, licenses, permits, and room to operate on Little St. James while accepting his money and influence.That is what made the litigation so brutal: it was not just about Epstein, but about which institution wanted the court to believe the other side had dirtier hands. The USVI tried to frame JP Morgan as the bank that kept Epstein financially alive; JP Morgan tried to frame the USVI as the jurisdiction that let him build his island kingdom in plain sight. Discovery dragged major names into the fight, including former JP Morgan executive Jes Staley, whose relationship with Epstein became a central part of the bank's internal blame game. In the end, JP Morgan agreed in September 2023 to pay $75 million to settle the USVI case, while admitting no wrongdoing, after separately agreeing to a $290 million settlement with Epstein victims. The settlement did not answer every question, but it did confirm the larger reality: Epstein's operation was not just protected by private secrecy, but by a whole ecosystem of banks, lawyers, officials, enablers, and institutions that later tried to shove the blame onto each other once the paper trail became impossible to bury.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

This week we are taking a break to spend some time with our kids and grandkids in Paris before they leave to return home to the US. In the meantime, we invite you to enjoy one of our absolute favorite destinations that we will continue to visit over and over again. This is one of our earliest episodes, so audio quality may not be the same as we were learning to do a podcast. __________________________ This episode we continue our “recorded onsite” series as we discover St John in the US Virgin Islands. No need for a passport this week as St John is another US Territory. We will talk about where to stay on the Island, where to eat, and what to do along with conversations that we've had over the last few days. So pack a bag and come join us on St John. Some links are affiliate links. See our disclosure. Get our full 7 Day St John Itinerary Here! It is a customizable itinerary but we've filled in our favorite places to snorkel and the hidden beaches we love! This is a must have when planning your trip to Saint John, USVi. In the esisode did forget to mention how to get here. To get to St. John you'll need to fly to St. Thomas and take a ferry over to St. John. The ferry runs from Red Hook on St. Thomas to Cruz Bay. You can take a taxi from the airport on St. Thomas to Red Hook to take the ferry. Check here for the ferry schedule. If you are staying at the Westin there is a separate ferry that is available. Check into their desk in the baggage claim area and they provide a shuttle to Red Hook. It is more expensive to take their ferry but it takes you directly to the resort and you can go back and forth to St. Thomas as much as you would like during your stay. Check with the Westin St John for the most up to date ferry schedule. Where to stay: Westin St. John Resort & Villas (this is where we have stayed twice) Gallows Point Resort - right in Cruz Bay Other places to stay in Cruz Bay and in Coral Bay All on St John Eco lodge on St John - Concordia Eco Resort in Coral Bay What to do: Rent a car to drive to all the beaches on the island O'Connor Car Rental (this one has a location at the Westin as well) Courtesy Car Rental St. John Car Rental Snorkel - this is what we spent most of our time on this trip doing! Our Top 5 Snorkel Beaches from this Trip Hawksnest Watermelon Cay Truck Bay Cinnamon Bay Maho Bay - to see the turtles You Tube of Snorkeling Video Link If you are staying on St Thomas or are on a Cruise that ports in St Thomas here are some day trip options so you can see St. John Day trips to St John from St Thomas St John Island Sightseeing Tour from St Thomas St John Island and Trunk Bay Beach Tour from St Thomas Other tours to St John Where to Eat on St. John Mongoose Junction St. John Brewers Tap Room Our Market Smoothies - tell our friend Karen that Scott & Melissa sent you Tap & Still - burgers, wings, fries, beer Grocery options - we recommend packing lunches for the beach and picking up breakfast items Dolphin Market - has gluten free, keto etc. options Starfish Market Other Resources Get our full itinerary here St. John App St John Packing List is Here Full St John Blog Post Guide is Here Read more about this and other travel destinations on our BLOG Follow our travels on Facebook Follow our travels on Instagram here and here Save our travel ideas on Pinterest Music Credit Music by OYStudio from Pixabay

Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon joins Cam with the latest on the DOJ's pro-2A litigation efforts, and says the agency isn't playing legal "smallball" by taking on Denver's local ban on "assault weapons" or the U.S. Virgin Islands' gun storage mandate and slow-walking of gun permits.

The government of the United States Virgin Islands aggressively pursued Jeffrey Epstein's estate after his death, arguing that the estate owed the territory millions of dollars connected to taxes, penalties, and alleged criminal conduct tied to Epstein's operations on Little St. James and Great St. James. USVI officials sought to place liens on estate assets as part of a broader effort to recover money they argued was tied to Epstein's trafficking enterprise and years of alleged abuse carried out within the territory. The territory's attorneys argued that Epstein had used shell companies, financial maneuvering, and complex business structures to shield assets while benefiting from lax oversight in the Virgin Islands. Officials also accused Epstein's estate executors and affiliated entities of attempting to move or protect assets before victims and authorities could fully recover damages, leading to a fierce legal battle over who would control the estate's remaining wealth and how those assets would be distributed.Epstein's estate pushed back hard against the USVI's efforts, challenging both the legality and scope of the requested liens. Attorneys for the estate argued that the government was overreaching and attempting to improperly seize assets before claims had been fully litigated or validated in court. The estate also claimed that many of the financial penalties and proposed liabilities being asserted by the USVI were speculative, inflated, or lacked sufficient legal basis. Lawyers for the executors maintained that the estate had already established compensation funds for victims and was cooperating with civil proceedings, while simultaneously disputing the government's attempts to broaden its financial claims. The dispute evolved into a prolonged court fight over taxation, asset control, jurisdictional authority, and whether the Virgin Islands government itself had failed for years to properly scrutinize Epstein's activities while he openly operated within the territory.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

The government of the United States Virgin Islands aggressively pursued Jeffrey Epstein's estate after his death, arguing that the estate owed the territory millions of dollars connected to taxes, penalties, and alleged criminal conduct tied to Epstein's operations on Little St. James and Great St. James. USVI officials sought to place liens on estate assets as part of a broader effort to recover money they argued was tied to Epstein's trafficking enterprise and years of alleged abuse carried out within the territory. The territory's attorneys argued that Epstein had used shell companies, financial maneuvering, and complex business structures to shield assets while benefiting from lax oversight in the Virgin Islands. Officials also accused Epstein's estate executors and affiliated entities of attempting to move or protect assets before victims and authorities could fully recover damages, leading to a fierce legal battle over who would control the estate's remaining wealth and how those assets would be distributed.Epstein's estate pushed back hard against the USVI's efforts, challenging both the legality and scope of the requested liens. Attorneys for the estate argued that the government was overreaching and attempting to improperly seize assets before claims had been fully litigated or validated in court. The estate also claimed that many of the financial penalties and proposed liabilities being asserted by the USVI were speculative, inflated, or lacked sufficient legal basis. Lawyers for the executors maintained that the estate had already established compensation funds for victims and was cooperating with civil proceedings, while simultaneously disputing the government's attempts to broaden its financial claims. The dispute evolved into a prolonged court fight over taxation, asset control, jurisdictional authority, and whether the Virgin Islands government itself had failed for years to properly scrutinize Epstein's activities while he openly operated within the territory.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Julie K. Brown, the investigative reporter for the Miami Herald, not only reignited the Jeffrey Epstein case by exposing the sweetheart non-prosecution agreement in Florida but also turned her spotlight to Epstein's Caribbean operations. In a 2023 Miami Herald piece titled “U.S. Virgin Islands cozied up to Jeffrey Epstein. Now they're profiting from his sex crimes,” Brown detailed how Epstein benefited from deep ties to the territory's institutions—securing lavish tax breaks and beneficial financial dealings through shell companies like Southern Trust. Her reporting underscored how USVI authorities, including those in positions of power, either overlooked or enabled Epstein's operations, which later came under legal scrutiny through lawsuits and settlements.In the piece, Brown argued that the USVI not only allowed Epstein to operate with little interference but later positioned itself to collect financial benefits through penalties and settlements after his death. This framing suggested that the government was both complicit in allowing the criminal enterprise to flourish and opportunistic in profiting from its collapse. The article sparked strong pushback, including from the University of the Virgin Islands, which issued a public response disputing some of the claims. The controversy reflected the tension between investigative reporting that sought to highlight systemic failures and local institutions that rejected the characterization of their role.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:U.S. Virgin Islands profiting from Jeffrey Epstein's crimes | Miami Herald

Judge Jed Rakoff approved a $290 million settlement between JPMorgan Chase and Jeffrey Epstein's victims, emphasizing that the case sent a strong message to the financial industry about the responsibilities of banking institutions. The settlement, which did not require JPMorgan to admit liability, resolved claims that the bank ignored red flags to maintain Epstein as a client, benefiting from his illegal activities from 1998 to 2013.The approval came after a last-minute challenge from 16 state attorneys general who objected to a clause in the settlement that prevented future claims by any "sovereign or government" on behalf of the victims. They argued that this could hinder future cases against sex trafficking perpetrators. However, Rakoff found the settlement terms clear and justified, dismissing the objections.The settlement also included a provision for the lawyers to receive 30% of the settlement amount in fees, which the judge deemed fair given the significant recovery for the plaintiffs. This settlement follows a similar case where Deutsche Bank agreed to pay $75 million to settle claims related to Epstein without admitting wrongdoing.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.591653.130.0_1.pdf (courtlistener.com)

Judge Jed Rakoff approved a $290 million settlement between JPMorgan Chase and Jeffrey Epstein's victims, emphasizing that the case sent a strong message to the financial industry about the responsibilities of banking institutions. The settlement, which did not require JPMorgan to admit liability, resolved claims that the bank ignored red flags to maintain Epstein as a client, benefiting from his illegal activities from 1998 to 2013.The approval came after a last-minute challenge from 16 state attorneys general who objected to a clause in the settlement that prevented future claims by any "sovereign or government" on behalf of the victims. They argued that this could hinder future cases against sex trafficking perpetrators. However, Rakoff found the settlement terms clear and justified, dismissing the objections.The settlement also included a provision for the lawyers to receive 30% of the settlement amount in fees, which the judge deemed fair given the significant recovery for the plaintiffs. This settlement follows a similar case where Deutsche Bank agreed to pay $75 million to settle claims related to Epstein without admitting wrongdoing.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.591653.130.0_1.pdf (courtlistener.com)