NEW YORK — A federal judge denied a request by the U.S. Virgin Islands to block JPMorgan Chase & Co. from arguing that the territory has “unclean hands” in suing the bank for allegedly benefiting from Jeffrey Epstein’s sex crimes because it also failed to act against him.
The USVI had argued that JPMorgan was seeking “to shift fault to the government for alleged failure to prevent Epstein’s and JPMorgan’s own trafficking-related activity.” The territory contended a state entity can’t be held liable for failing to protect a specific individual rather than the general public.
JP Morgan’s Counterclaim: USVI’s Complicity in Epstein’s Activities
JP Morgan has fought back against the allegations, arguing that the government of the U.S. Virgin Islands had a long-standing and profitable relationship with Epstein. The bank states that the government approved numerous business and economic deals benefiting Epstein, making it complicit in his affairs. The bank also argues that the government ignored Epstein’s criminal activities while they continued to profit from his investments.
Implications of the ‘Unclean Hands’ Defense
The ‘unclean hands’ defense is a legal doctrine that implies that a plaintiff cannot sue if they have acted unethically or have been a part of the wrongdoing in relation to the subject of the lawsuit. In this case, JP Morgan asserts that the USVI government was involved in Epstein’s activities, and therefore, it cannot sue the bank for its involvement.
Judge’s Ruling on JP Morgan’s Defense
The judge presiding over the case, Judge Curtis V. Gomez, rejected the USVI’s attempt to block JP Morgan’s defense. He stated that the ‘unclean hands’ defense was legitimate and could be used by the bank. The decision means that JP Morgan can continue to argue that the USVI government was complicit in Epstein’s activities.
However, the judge made it clear that this ruling does not mean he agrees with JP Morgan’s defense or that he has made any determination about the USVI’s involvement with Epstein. He simply ruled that the bank could use the ‘unclean hands’ defense in its case.
Significance of the Case
This case is significant as it brings to light the issue of financial institutions’ responsibilities in monitoring their clients’ activities. It also raises questions about the extent to which governments should be held accountable for the activities of individuals they support financially. The ruling allows for a more complex and nuanced examination of these issues as the case proceeds.
SOURCE: Bloomberg