Latest / Beyond The Horizon / FirstBank Puerto Rico Moves to Dismiss Epstein Victim’s Lawsuit

Transcript

FirstBank Puerto Rico Moves to Dismiss Epstein Victim’s Lawsuit · Beyond The Horizon

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: What's up everyone and welcome to another episode of the
• 0:03
  Speaker 1: Epstein Chronicles. A couple of months ago, some Epstein survivors
• 0:08
  Speaker 1: got together and they filed a lawsuit against several different banks.
• 0:13
  Speaker 1: And one of those banks was the First Bank of
• 0:15
  Speaker 1: Puerto Rico. Well now, the First Bank of Puerto Rico
• 0:20
  Speaker 1: is moving to dismiss that lawsuit. And they're claiming that
• 0:24
  Speaker 1: the court doesn't have the jurisdiction it needs to pursue
• 0:28
  Speaker 1: a lawsuit against them. And of course, the survivors' lawyers
• 0:33
  Speaker 1: have pushed back and called that complete BS. So today,
• 0:38
  Speaker 1: we have an article from the St. Thomas Source and
• 0:40
  Speaker 1: the headline, First Bank Puerto Rico Moves to Dismiss Epstein
• 0:44
  Speaker 1: Victim's Lawsuit. This article was authored by Cian Cobb. First
• 0:50
  Speaker 1: Bank Puerto Rico has asked the New York Federal Court
• 0:52
  Speaker 1: to dismiss a civil complaint alleging it aided Jeffrey Epstein's
• 0:56
  Speaker 1: sex trafficking operation, arguing that the court lacks jurisdiction... And
• 1:00
  Speaker 1: the lawsuit provides no evidence that the bank had any
• 1:04
  Speaker 1: knowledge of or participated in the convicted sex offender scheme. No,
• 1:09
  Speaker 1: they had no idea. What they forget to leave out
• 1:13
  Speaker 1: is that they had an idea, they just ignored it.
• 1:16
  Speaker 1: When you have a bank like this, there's all kinds
• 1:20
  Speaker 1: of regulation. You should have multiple layers of protection when
• 1:27
  Speaker 1: it comes to people that are engaged in fraud, money laundering,
• 1:30
  Speaker 1: whatever it might be. And the simple fact is, the
• 1:35
  Speaker 1: vast majority of these banks bypass those safeguards so that
• 1:40
  Speaker 1: they can continue to do business with Jeffrey Epstein. And
• 1:43
  Speaker 1: that's because the juice to them was worth the squeeze.
• 1:46
  Speaker 1: All the people Epstein could bring aboard, all the money
• 1:49
  Speaker 1: that he was moving through the bank, and all the
• 1:51
  Speaker 1: pockets that he was filling. First Bank's 33-page memorandum supporting
• 1:59
  Speaker 1: its motion to dismiss the suit brought last month by
• 2:01
  Speaker 1: an Epstein victim proceeding anonymously and identified only as Jane
• 2:05
  Speaker 1: Doe was filed late Thursday in district court for the
• 2:09
  Speaker 1: Southern District of New York. The case is assigned to
• 2:12
  Speaker 1: Judge Jed Rakoff, who's presided over several other civil suits
• 2:17
  Speaker 1: by Epstein victims against the banks they say enabled them,
• 2:22
  Speaker 1: as well as the Virgin Islands' complaint against JPMorgan Chase,
• 2:25
  Speaker 1: that resulted in a $ 75 million settlement in September of 2023.
• 2:31
  Speaker 1: So Judge Rakoff, as you all know, has some experience
• 2:35
  Speaker 1: with this. And so far, he hasn't been very friendly
• 2:40
  Speaker 1: to the banks. So I don't know if First Bank
• 2:44
  Speaker 1: is going to be successful here with their jurisdictional argument,
• 2:48
  Speaker 1: but it's pretty much all they have to go on, right?
• 2:52
  Speaker 1: When you don't have the evidence or the facts backing
• 2:54
  Speaker 1: you up, it becomes a battle of loopholes and technicalities.
• 2:59
  Speaker 1: And it's not just obviously the First Bank of Puerto
• 3:01
  Speaker 1: Rico that's doing this. That's what most of these corporations do,
• 3:06
  Speaker 1: whether it has to do with Epstein or not. Those
• 3:10
  Speaker 1: represented by Boyes, Schiller & Flexner LLP of New York
• 3:14
  Speaker 1: and Bradley J. Edwards of Florida, the same firms that
• 3:17
  Speaker 1: have won settlements for scores of Epstein victims, including against
• 3:21
  Speaker 1: his estate, which is headquartered in the U.S. Virgin Islands.
• 3:26
  Speaker 1: First Bank, Puerto Rico, and its parent company, First Bank Corp.,
• 3:30
  Speaker 1: are represented by Holland and Knight, LLP, and William Cutler
• 3:34
  Speaker 1: Pickering Hale and Doerr, LLP. I mean, how many more
• 3:38
  Speaker 1: partners do you need on the name? Wilmer Cutler Pickering
• 3:42
  Speaker 1: Hale and Doerr, LLP? Everybody has to have their name
• 3:47
  Speaker 1: on the firm wall? What I think they're missing is
• 3:49
  Speaker 1: another name or two. Noting First Bank's long relationship with
• 3:54
  Speaker 1: Epstein from around 1998 through 2020 after his August 2019
• 3:58
  Speaker 1: death while in federal custody on sex trafficking charges, Dahl's
• 4:02
  Speaker 1: lawsuit accuses the institution of participating in and financially benefiting
• 4:08
  Speaker 1: from the disgraced financier's international trafficking operation for more than
• 4:12
  Speaker 1: two decades in violation of the Trafficking Victim Protection Act
• 4:17
  Speaker 1: and the New York City Gender-Motivated Violence Protection Act. So
• 4:22
  Speaker 1: that's why they're claiming the jurisdictional issue, because they're trying
• 4:26
  Speaker 1: to use New York laws against a bank that's based
• 4:29
  Speaker 1: in Puerto Rico. So that's where the jurisdiction comes in. Now,
• 4:33
  Speaker 1: of course, there's going to be loopholes and technicalities as
• 4:36
  Speaker 1: well as it continues to move forward because there always are.
• 4:40
  Speaker 1: My guess, they'll eventually settle. For how much? I don't know.
• 4:45
  Speaker 1: But that's been the M.O., As a result, First Bank
• 4:51
  Speaker 1: acquired a plethora of information that could have put Epstein
• 4:54
  Speaker 1: in prison years earlier if it had simply properly reported
• 4:57
  Speaker 1: what it knew to the authorities, according to the 91-page complaint. Instead,
• 5:03
  Speaker 1: it chose to profit to the detriment of hundreds of victims,
• 5:06
  Speaker 1: it says. For example, a U.S. Treasury Department report referenced
• 5:10
  Speaker 1: in the complaint noted that from 2003 to 2019, there
• 5:13
  Speaker 1: were more than 4,725 wire transfers reported totaling $ 1. 8 billion,
• 5:21
  Speaker 1: involving Epstein and associates, including his attorney Darren Indyke, accountants
• 5:26
  Speaker 1: Harry Beller and Richard Kahn, and the U.S. Virgin Islands
• 5:29
  Speaker 1: tax attorney Erica Kellerhals. And if you were wondering why
• 5:34
  Speaker 1: they didn't hit them with Rico, this is why. I'll
• 5:37
  Speaker 1: just point it out again. Because nobody wants to talk
• 5:41
  Speaker 1: about it for whatever reason, but the truth is, if
• 5:44
  Speaker 1: they would have just used Rico, all these people would
• 5:46
  Speaker 1: have been caught up. including a guy like Ted Wade.
• 5:51
  Speaker 1: You're going to send $ 7 million to somebody who's engaging
• 5:55
  Speaker 1: in a criminal conspiracy? I mean, if you were related
• 5:58
  Speaker 1: to El Chapo and El Chapo sent you that money,
• 6:02
  Speaker 1: how do you think the government would have reacted? So
• 6:05
  Speaker 1: what's the difference? I'll tell you, there is no difference.
• 6:09
  Speaker 1: Besides the fact that Jeffrey Epstein was friends with some very,
• 6:12
  Speaker 1: very powerful people. First Bank of Puerto Rico forcefully disputes
• 6:18
  Speaker 1: that characterization, saying Doe's complaint provides no evidence that any
• 6:22
  Speaker 1: of its employees had any sort of relationship or direct
• 6:25
  Speaker 1: involvement with Epstein, let alone contemporaneous knowledge of trafficking. While
• 6:31
  Speaker 1: the lawsuit cites the 2003 Vanity Fair story and news
• 6:35
  Speaker 1: reports when he was convicted of soliciting a minor for
• 6:38
  Speaker 1: prostitution in 2008 in Florida, earning him a place on
• 6:42
  Speaker 1: the sex offender registry, The bank said that there is
• 6:45
  Speaker 1: no evidence that any of its employees knew of or
• 6:48
  Speaker 1: saw those articles at the time. Boy, that is a
• 6:52
  Speaker 1: weak-ass argument. You mean to tell me that nobody in
• 6:55
  Speaker 1: your regulation department had any idea who you were doing
• 6:58
  Speaker 1: business with? That is a problem unto itself. So how
• 7:03
  Speaker 1: many other unknown scumbags are banking at First Bank Puerto
• 7:07
  Speaker 1: Rico as we speak? Does a full audit need to
• 7:12
  Speaker 1: be conducted? I would say so. Will that happen? Of
• 7:15
  Speaker 1: course not. But it should. Moreover, it had a legitimate
• 7:20
  Speaker 1: reason for keeping Epstein's accounts open after his 2019 arrest,
• 7:25
  Speaker 1: including compliance with criminal activity liens and account freezes by
• 7:29
  Speaker 1: law enforcement, the bank states. It also filed a Suspicious
• 7:34
  Speaker 1: Activity Report, or SAR, noting $ 1. 7 million in suspicious transactions
• 7:40
  Speaker 1: just 11 days after the arrest. That filing demonstrates assistance
• 7:44
  Speaker 1: to law enforcement as soon as the bank became aware
• 7:48
  Speaker 1: of an investigation. Not obstruction, it says. The idea with
• 7:52
  Speaker 1: SARS is to use them previous to all this happening
• 7:56
  Speaker 1: so that FinCEN, the Financial Regulatory Board, can be aware
• 7:59
  Speaker 1: of what's going on. So if you do it retroactively,
• 8:04
  Speaker 1: then who are you helping besides yourself? And if you
• 8:09
  Speaker 1: don't do it in a timely manner, like right away,
• 8:13
  Speaker 1: then you're in violation. And there's literally no gray area here.
• 8:17
  Speaker 1: We're talking about Title 31 laws, folks. First Bank is
• 8:20
  Speaker 1: at least the fifth financial institution to be targeted by
• 8:24
  Speaker 1: the same group of plaintiff's lawyers over alleged links to
• 8:26
  Speaker 1: Jeffrey Epstein. The 319-paragraph complaint cuts in pace from those
• 8:32
  Speaker 1: past pleadings and had the benefit of 3.5 million pages
• 8:36
  Speaker 1: of publicly released documents pursuant to the Epstein-Files Transparency Act
• 8:40
  Speaker 1: that was passed by Congress and signed into law last November,
• 8:44
  Speaker 1: according to the memorandum. As a result, the complaint is
• 8:48
  Speaker 1: filled with allegations of misconduct by other entities, but short
• 8:52
  Speaker 1: on one key ingredient, facts sufficient to state a claim
• 8:56
  Speaker 1: against First Bank. It says, Yeah, I have my doubts, okay?
• 9:01
  Speaker 1: I have my doubts. And I think that First Bank
• 9:05
  Speaker 1: is sounding a whole lot like J.P. Morgan right now.
• 9:08
  Speaker 1: Remember how J.P. Morgan was carrying on at first? We're
• 9:11
  Speaker 1: never going to settle. We're going to see this out
• 9:12
  Speaker 1: to the end. We did nothing wrong. What did they
• 9:15
  Speaker 1: end up doing? I have a funny feeling that's what
• 9:18
  Speaker 1: we're going to see here too. The few facts it
• 9:22
  Speaker 1: does include show that First Bank provided routine banking services
• 9:26
  Speaker 1: that cannot support claims under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act
• 9:29
  Speaker 1: or the New York City Gender Motivated Violence Protection Act.
• 9:34
  Speaker 1: This deficiency is fatal and the complaint should be dismissed
• 9:37
  Speaker 1: with prejudice, it says. By comparison, the Epstein victim's successful
• 9:42
  Speaker 1: suit against Deutsche Bank relied on allegations that a JP
• 9:45
  Speaker 1: Morgan affiliate actually trafficked women and girls on a company aircraft,
• 9:51
  Speaker 1: that it ignored oversight measures imposed by its own risk committee,
• 9:55
  Speaker 1: facilitated transfers to known co-conspirators, and provided Epstein to $ 200, 000
• 10:00
  Speaker 1: per year in cash through services characterized as far from routine,
• 10:05
  Speaker 1: according to the memorandum. Likewise, a claim against Bank of
• 10:08
  Speaker 1: America survived because it allegedly provided direct banking services to
• 10:13
  Speaker 1: a trafficking victim despite having every reason to know that
• 10:16
  Speaker 1: the victim had no ability to earn legitimate income. in
• 10:19
  Speaker 1: the United States, and serviced MC2, or MC squared, a
• 10:24
  Speaker 1: modeling agency used to recruit victims, despite suspicious and non-routine circumstances.
• 10:29
  Speaker 1: It says, The complaint against First Bank alleges nothing comparable,
• 10:33
  Speaker 1: the memorandum concludes. I have a funny feeling the court
• 10:37
  Speaker 1: is going to feel differently. When all's said and done,
• 10:40
  Speaker 1: I think the court's going to feel differently. And that's
• 10:42
  Speaker 1: because this bank was obviously playing ball with Epstein. The
• 10:46
  Speaker 1: question is, to what level? At most, plaintiff provides conclusory
• 10:50
  Speaker 1: allegations that Epstein received an undefined preferred customer designation, had
• 10:55
  Speaker 1: certain routine fees waived, and opened accounts. Those allegations describe
• 11:00
  Speaker 1: ordinary customer service, not extraordinary or specially tailored assistance, the
• 11:05
  Speaker 1: bank states. Any first bank customer with a similar balance
• 11:09
  Speaker 1: would have automatically received the same routine treatment, it says.
• 11:13
  Speaker 1: Unable to allege participation, through any kind of direct or
• 11:17
  Speaker 1: active engagement, though, largely repackages the same theory this court
• 11:21
  Speaker 1: has previously rejected, that processing allegedly suspicious transactions by itself
• 11:27
  Speaker 1: constitutes participation, according to the memorandum. Allegations concerning transfers to
• 11:33
  Speaker 1: First Bank customers Anne M. Rodriguez, who managed Little St. James,
• 11:38
  Speaker 1: Epstein's private island off St. Thomas, and former First Lady
• 11:42
  Speaker 1: Cecile de Jong, his longtime office manager, Fair no better,
• 11:46
  Speaker 1: the bank says. The complaint does not allege that either
• 11:50
  Speaker 1: recipient was a trafficking victim, recruiter, co-conspirator, or participant in
• 11:54
  Speaker 1: any alleged trafficking venture, nor does it allege facts suggesting
• 11:58
  Speaker 1: that either transfer was processed in a non-routine way, funded
• 12:03
  Speaker 1: trafficking activity, or otherwise furthered the alleged venture. At most,
• 12:08
  Speaker 1: plaintiff alleges that transfers should have been viewed as suspicious
• 12:12
  Speaker 1: because they involved round-dollar amounts. These transfers, like the rest
• 12:16
  Speaker 1: of plaintiff's allegations, are insufficient to establish active participation, the
• 12:21
  Speaker 1: memorandum states. In fact, the list of Epstein's accounts detailed
• 12:25
  Speaker 1: in the complaint comes from a first bank letter that
• 12:28
  Speaker 1: demonstrates the bank's compliance with a law enforcement subpoena proving
• 12:32
  Speaker 1: that it did not obstruct the law. It says, I
• 12:35
  Speaker 1: think the real question is how many SARs did they
• 12:38
  Speaker 1: file and when did they file them? And if they
• 12:40
  Speaker 1: weren't filed regularly... leading up to Jeffrey Epstein's death and arrest,
• 12:45
  Speaker 1: then I think that their argument is DOA. Because if
• 12:49
  Speaker 1: you didn't file those SARs, then you weren't doing your job.
• 12:55
  Speaker 1: At bottom, the complaint alleges that knowing anything or everything
• 12:59
  Speaker 1: we do now, First Bank should have done more to
• 13:01
  Speaker 1: prevent Epstein's crimes. But obstruction cannot be pled in hindsight.
• 13:05
  Speaker 1: An obstruction claim requires knowing interference with a law enforcement investigation. Here,
• 13:12
  Speaker 1: there are no facts suggesting anyone at First Bank was
• 13:15
  Speaker 1: even aware of an effort to enforce the TVPA from
• 13:18
  Speaker 1: 2008 to Epstein's 2019 arrest, and no allegation that, once
• 13:24
  Speaker 1: it became aware, the bank did anything other than aid
• 13:27
  Speaker 1: the investigation by filing a SAR and responding to subpoenas,
• 13:31
  Speaker 1: the memorandum states. According to the court docket, Doe's opposition
• 13:35
  Speaker 1: to First Bank's motion to dismiss is due August 13th,
• 13:39
  Speaker 1: and First Bank has until August 20th to reply. So,
• 13:44
  Speaker 1: this is in the early stages, and we have no
• 13:47
  Speaker 1: idea how it's going to end up, so what we'll do,
• 13:49
  Speaker 1: like usual, is follow along. And when we have some
• 13:53
  Speaker 1: more information one way or the other, we'll get that
• 13:55
  Speaker 1: added to the catalog. All the information that goes with
• 13:59
  Speaker 1: this episode can be found in the description box.