0 By. GETTY IMAGES
A federal judge has allowed one of the complaints brought by the U.S. Virgin Islands against JPMorgan Chase to stand, after hearing a motion by the bank to dismiss the lawsuit in its entirety.
Judge Jed Rakoff in the United States District Court Southern District of New York issued his 4-page ruling on Monday, dealing with several motions that have been combined into one proceeding. JPMorgan is defending itself against two lawsuits, one from the U.S.V.I and other from an unnamed litigant, Jane Doe.
Of the VIDOJ’s lawsuit, the claim that remains standing is that JPMorgan knowingly benefited from participating in a Jeffrey Epstein-led sex trafficking venture. The other three claims in the first amended complaint were dismissed.
Six of the 10 claims made against JPMorgan in Jane Doe’s lawsuit were dismissed. The four allegations left standing are that the bank negligently failed to exercise reasonable care to prevent physical harm; that the bank negligently failed to exercise reasonable care as a banking institution providing non-routine banking; that the bank knowingly benefited from participating in a sex trafficking venture; and that the bank obstructed enforcement of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act.
Another suit added as part of the matter is one by the same Jane Doe plaintiff against Deutsche Bank and two of its United States subsidiaries. In this matter, the judge once again struck down six of the claims against Deutsche Bank, leaving four standing - the same allegations that remain against JP Morgan.
Judge Rakoff’s opinion explaining his rulings will, he said, follow “in due course.”
JP Morgan continues to defend against the allegations that it turned a blind eye to Jeffrey Epstein’s criminal dealings while profiting from the business relationship between the convicted sex offender and the world’s largest bank. Most recently, the bank sued a former executive who it argues should be held personally liable for any damages it might be ordered to pay as a result of the two lawsuits currently pending against it, one from the VI DOJ and the other from the woman referred to as “Jane Doe 1” in court filings.
