Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 1: Ukrainian President Volodimir Zelinski called the arrest warrant for Russian
Speaker 1: President Vladimir Putin a historic decision from which historical responsibility
Speaker 1: will begin. The warrant from the International Criminal Court accuses
Speaker 1: Putin of the war crime of unlawfully deporting children from
Speaker 1: Ukraine to Russia. Ukraine says that sixteen thousand, two hundred
Speaker 1: and twenty six children have been deported to Russia. President
Speaker 1: Joe Biden agrees that Putin has committed war crimes. H
Speaker 1: I think it's justified this, But the question is it's
Speaker 1: not recognized internationally by US either. But I think it
Speaker 1: makes a very strong points of lad war crimes in
Speaker 1: Ukraine's perfect matter. Joining me is an expert in international
Speaker 1: criminal law, Patrick Keenan, a professor at the University of
Speaker 1: Illinois College of Law. This is the first time the
Speaker 1: ICC has ever indicted a leader of a permanent member
Speaker 1: of the UN Security Council. What's the immediate effect of
Speaker 1: this arrest warrant for Putin? I think the immediate effect
Speaker 1: is mostly symbolic. This signals to the world that Putin
Speaker 1: is an accused war criminal, and I think it will
Speaker 1: have some symbolic effect. I think the immediate practical effect
Speaker 1: is that it limits Putin's ability to travel outside of
Speaker 1: Russia or territory that Russia controls, either directly or indirectly.
Speaker 1: So I think the symbolic effect is more important. I
Speaker 1: don't think Putin was planning to travel to ICC member
Speaker 1: states anytime soon, but I think it does have that
Speaker 1: practical effect. This weekend he made his first trip outside
Speaker 1: of Russia since the warrant, and he went to marry Opel,
Speaker 1: the Ukrainian city that Russia destroyed. Do you think this
Speaker 1: was an act of defiance in relation to the warrant
Speaker 1: or didn't have anything to do with it. That's hard
Speaker 1: for me to say. I think one thing that we
Speaker 1: know about Putin is that he is, at least to
Speaker 1: my eyes, somewhat unpredictable and really not concerned with international
Speaker 1: public opinion. It certainly seems to me like an act
Speaker 1: of defiance, but it was kind of a weak active defiance.
Speaker 1: The ICC, as you know, doesn't have a police force,
Speaker 1: so it can't go out and execute these arrest warrants.
Speaker 1: So Putin knows as long as he's in Russia or
Speaker 1: in a territory that Russia controls, then he's not going
Speaker 1: to be arrested. So it may look like he is
Speaker 1: being defiant in a significant way by leaving Russia, but
Speaker 1: he knew that he wasn't going to risk arrest, so
Speaker 1: it's kind of a weak act of defiance if it
Speaker 1: is an active defiance at all. Describe the warrant for
Speaker 1: us what it accuses him and another Russian official love.
Speaker 1: So it accuses Putin and Maria Levova Belova of the
Speaker 1: war crime of unlawfully deporting and transporting children from occupied
Speaker 1: Ukraine into Russia. It's illegal under international law and under
Speaker 1: the laws of war for an occupying power, in this
Speaker 1: case Russia, to deport the local population or to transfer
Speaker 1: that local population from where they are originally to another place,
Speaker 1: either within Ukraine or to Russia. The specifics of this
Speaker 1: alleged that they are working on have been working on
Speaker 1: a program of illegally transporting children from occupied Ukraine into Russia.
Speaker 1: And so this is a war crime, and it can
Speaker 1: also be charged as a way to commit genocide, but
Speaker 1: in this instance it was charged as two separate war crimes.
Speaker 1: It's essentially the same conduct, just charged under two different
Speaker 1: provisions of the ICC Statute. I think it's significant that
Speaker 1: it's charged as a war crime and not as a
Speaker 1: way to commit genocide, because war crimes in this instance,
Speaker 1: at least, are somewhat more straightforward charge. The prosecution would
Speaker 1: have to show that these acts occurred, so the transfer
Speaker 1: of children, and I think there's substantial evidence of that,
Speaker 1: and that it's taken place in the context of an
Speaker 1: armed conflict, which is also pretty straightforward. For genocide. To
Speaker 1: charge these same conduct as genocide, the prosecution would have
Speaker 1: to show that this was done with an intent to
Speaker 1: destroy in whole or in part the Ukrainian people, and
Speaker 1: I think that's the law has evolved in a way
Speaker 1: to make that a somewhat more difficult proposition. Are these
Speaker 1: children who are orphans or were they taken from their parents?
Speaker 1: Do we know, like what children he's taken to Russia?
Speaker 1: We don't, or at least I don't. There has been
Speaker 1: some good documentation of this from non governmental organizations. Columbia
Speaker 1: Universe City has some investigation of this, and some other
Speaker 1: non governmental organizations have and it appears, at least from
Speaker 1: the reporting that I've seen, and again is not something
Speaker 1: I've looked at on the ground. Is that some of
Speaker 1: these children may be orphans, Some maybe children who have
Speaker 1: been separated from their parents during the war, and some
Speaker 1: are children who have and know the whereabouts that their parents.
Speaker 1: So Russia has kind of tried to argue that this
Speaker 1: is a humanitarian endeavor, so they're moving orphans from Ukraine
Speaker 1: to Russia to be adopted. I think by charging this
Speaker 1: as a war crime, this is a way for the
Speaker 1: International Criminal Court to signal that no, this is not
Speaker 1: a humanitarian project that Russia's engaged in. This is a
Speaker 1: war crime, pure and simple, against the most vulnerable people
Speaker 1: in times of war, and that is children. You mentioned
Speaker 1: the charges are narrow and conservative. Deporting civilians is an
Speaker 1: established war crime. So do you think I did it
Speaker 1: that way deliberately to make it straightforward and easier to
Speaker 1: win if it ever does go to court. I do,
Speaker 1: And I'm not sure about the easier to win part,
Speaker 1: But I think THEE shows these initial charges deliberately for
Speaker 1: a couple of reasons. One is the lead defendant is putin.
Speaker 1: He's at the very top of the power structure in Russia, obviously,
Speaker 1: and he's the reason that the war is happening. He's
Speaker 1: the one who initiated the war, so he has significant power,
Speaker 1: almost complete control over whether there's going to be a
Speaker 1: war and what the world will look like. So they're
Speaker 1: really going after the very top of the power structure,
Speaker 1: and this charge goes after the top of the power
Speaker 1: structure while also taking into account of harmstune to the
Speaker 1: most vulnerable people. So by going after the most powerful
Speaker 1: person and by accounting for the most vulnerable victim, I
Speaker 1: think this sends a really important symbolic message from the
Speaker 1: ICC that they're investingation has been really thorough. It's determined
Speaker 1: that putin and the logo that there's reasonable grounds to
Speaker 1: believe that they're criminally responsible for these actions and that
Speaker 1: these are the most vulnerable victims. So I think the
Speaker 1: SEC is trying to fulfill its mission to hold accountable
Speaker 1: the people who are most responsible for international atrocity crimes.
Speaker 1: Russia Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakarova called the document legally worthless.
Speaker 1: Decisions of the International Criminal Court have no value for
Speaker 1: our country, in particular from a legal point of view.
Speaker 1: I mean that is true, and the United States hasn't
Speaker 1: recognized the ICC, So how does that play into it.
Speaker 1: I think that's a good question as to whether the
Speaker 1: fact that Russia is not a member state of the ICEC,
Speaker 1: not a party to the Rome Statute, whether that means anything.
Speaker 1: So I think in this case it's a little more
Speaker 1: complicated than saying this is legally irrelevant. First of all,
Speaker 1: if Putin travels to a country that's a member state
Speaker 1: of the ICC, and that country is willing to fulfill
Speaker 1: his duty, and that is to arrest Putin, to execute
Speaker 1: the icec's arrest warrant, then the Foreign Ministry spokesperson may
Speaker 1: think that this has no power, but they will have
Speaker 1: real power if he's arrested. I don't think that's likely,
Speaker 1: it's certainly in the short to medium term, but it's
Speaker 1: possible later on. It's also possible that it's unlikely that
Speaker 1: Putin will be president of Russia forever, so I think
Speaker 1: after he's out of power, that may have some practical effect.
Speaker 1: I think also the way the law works has effects
Speaker 1: beyond just the immediate execution of the arrest warrant. So
Speaker 1: someone who's subject to an arrest warrant to travel is limited.
Speaker 1: Their trading partners are going to be more hesitant. This
Speaker 1: may have effect domestically within Russia and the Russian opposition,
Speaker 1: either the people in the streets or people who are
Speaker 1: have been so far allies or sort of tentative allies Putin.
Speaker 1: People with a lot of resources and power. They may
Speaker 1: decide doing business with an accused war criminal is too
Speaker 1: cost but we want to do business with the rest
Speaker 1: of the world. So I think it because there's the
Speaker 1: likelihood that this will have effects domestically, This can have
Speaker 1: effects in terms of Putin's travel. It's certainly not accurate
Speaker 1: to say this is irrelevant. It is true to say
Speaker 1: this arrest warrant will not be executed anytime soon, because
Speaker 1: Putin is unlikely to leave a safe territory until either
Speaker 1: the arrest warrant goes away or he's no longer president.
Speaker 1: The ICEC has only indicted fifty two people. Have any
Speaker 1: of those indictments led to prosecutions trials? Yes, I sec
Speaker 1: has held the number of trials these trials, convictions, and
Speaker 1: in some cases acquittals. It's the robust system. It does
Speaker 1: work slowly, in part because look at the kinds of
Speaker 1: cases it takes on. It takes on enormous cases that
Speaker 1: have just tremendous amounts of evidence. There's just a mountain
Speaker 1: of evidence that the prosecution has to go through. So yes,
Speaker 1: I SEC cases have led to prosecutions, have led to convictions.
Speaker 1: They've even led to guilty please in some cases, so
Speaker 1: there wasn't a trial, but there was a conviction and
Speaker 1: after the case, so when there is a prosecution that
Speaker 1: leads to conviction, then there's a reparations process, so the
Speaker 1: people accused can be held responsible for paying reparations or
Speaker 1: providing for reparations to victims. So the SEC has indicted
Speaker 1: fifty odd people in the number of convictions is relatively low,
Speaker 1: but compared to the magnitude of the cases, I think
Speaker 1: the work rate it certainly isn't what I or most
Speaker 1: people wish that it was, but I think it's fairly substantial.
Speaker 1: So I know that they indicted Gadafi during the Libyan uprising.
Speaker 1: Do these indictments ever lead to leaders changing their behavior?
Speaker 1: Yes and no. It's first of all, it's hard to
Speaker 1: stay for sure. So there have been two heads of
Speaker 1: state previously who were indicted, and so just to be clear,
Speaker 1: Putin has not been indicted so far. There's an arrest warrant,
Speaker 1: but not an indictment, so I don't want to misspeak.
Speaker 1: There've been two heads of state previously who were charged,
Speaker 1: and that was Lauren Bagbo from the Ivory Coast from
Speaker 1: an Albashir from Sudan, and Bagbo was eventually acquitted Albashir
Speaker 1: it took a long time for anything to happen. Other
Speaker 1: states refused to execute the arrest warrant, so that was
Speaker 1: it became a very politicized case. So the SEC and
Speaker 1: the SEC also for a while at charges against two
Speaker 1: men who became leaders in Kenya. But the icec's track
Speaker 1: record of going after heads of state, I think is
Speaker 1: not a long one, and it shouldn't be. We shouldn't
Speaker 1: expect heads of state to be committing international crimes. I
Speaker 1: think this case is unique, so I'm not sure how
Speaker 1: much the previous examples tell us. They tell us something
Speaker 1: about the legal status, but I don't know that they
Speaker 1: help us predict how this will turn out. The lead
Speaker 1: lawyer for the government of Ukraine, Ben Emerson, has said
Speaker 1: that this arrest warrant is like a first shot in
Speaker 1: what could be a substantial indictment against Putin. Do you
Speaker 1: think he's correct? I do My read is that the
Speaker 1: first step in what will be a series of charges
Speaker 1: against both Putin and other Russian officials, and so in
Speaker 1: the future I would expect to see indictments for several things.
Speaker 1: So I think there is substantial evidence. There's the overwhelming
Speaker 1: evidence of war crimes and crimes against humanity in Ukraine,
Speaker 1: and as a lawyer, I can't say for sure these
Speaker 1: have been entirely proven. So we've seen all the evidence
Speaker 1: and the defenses presented. But based on the news reporting,
Speaker 1: there looks like there's substantial evidence of war crimes for
Speaker 1: targeting civilian and killing civilians. The separate war crimes for
Speaker 1: using weapons that are much too imprecise for the context.
Speaker 1: You can't use the weapons that cause wide indiscriminate destruction
Speaker 1: and populated areas even if you're not directly targeting civilians.
Speaker 1: There have been war crimes and crimes against humanity relating
Speaker 1: to sexual violence against women and girls, and for torture
Speaker 1: and mistreatment of civilians and captured soldiers. Plus I would
Speaker 1: expect see a number of war crimes and crimes against
Speaker 1: humanity indictment. It's not clear to me yet whether there
Speaker 1: will be charges of genocide, genocide requires proof of the
Speaker 1: intent to destroy and whole or in parts of Ukrainian people,
Speaker 1: and I think the way the law has evolved has
Speaker 1: made it complicated to prove that. I'm not saying that
Speaker 1: that hasn't happened, but just that as the legal matter,
Speaker 1: it might be difficult. So my best guess is there
Speaker 1: will be more indictments, maybe many more indictments. I have
Speaker 1: no inside information, but I would expect to see those,
Speaker 1: I would say in the short to medium term. So
Speaker 1: in the next three to six months. Does this offer
Speaker 1: any hope of Ukrainian families getting their children back? I mean,
Speaker 1: could there be some kind of deal may or is
Speaker 1: that just not in the equation? My best guess is
Speaker 1: that it's not in the equation because it would require
Speaker 1: some acknowledgement by Russia that had done something wrong, and
Speaker 1: so far Putin has shown no inclination to acknowledge that
Speaker 1: any part of this is in any way wrong. These
Speaker 1: actions are clearly illegal, right from the build up to
Speaker 1: the invasion, to the invasion to the way that the
Speaker 1: war has been conducted. So the laws clearly on one side,
Speaker 1: and Putin is kind of describing a reality that just
Speaker 1: doesn't exist when he's arguing in favor of the war,
Speaker 1: so I wouldn't want to raise the hopes of people
Speaker 1: who are desperately looking for hope for their children back.
Speaker 1: There is one kind of small life of this that
Speaker 1: I think it hasn't gotten a lot of attention, and
Speaker 1: that is that unto the ICC rules, there's a little
Speaker 1: known provision in the ICC Statute that would allow the
Speaker 1: UN Security Council to suspend an ICC prosecution for twelve
Speaker 1: months in the interests of international He's in security and
Speaker 1: I'm not predicting this will happen, but I just want
Speaker 1: to describe it as a possibility, or note it as
Speaker 1: a possibility. So what that means is the Security Council
Speaker 1: could say, ICC stand down for twelve months, and we'll
Speaker 1: use this twelve months to negotiate a peaceful ends in
Speaker 1: the situation, or maybe negotiate the return of the children
Speaker 1: who have been illegally deported and illegally transferred to Russia.
Speaker 1: I'm curious to see whether any momentum develops behind that possibility. Again,
Speaker 1: I'm not predicting it, but I think that's the one
Speaker 1: place where I see at least the possibility that the
Speaker 1: indictment could lead to some kind of negotiation that could
Speaker 1: provide some hope. And I don't want to raise false hope,
Speaker 1: but I think that that's legally possible. And I'm curious
Speaker 1: to see whether any countries really want to step up
Speaker 1: and see if they can broke or something like that.
Speaker 1: That would be wonderful. And why isn't the US a
Speaker 1: member of the ICC? So when the SEC was being created,
Speaker 1: the US was an active participant in drafting the statute.
Speaker 1: So the US, both official negotiators and people who were
Speaker 1: Americans just working on the issues, had substantial influence on
Speaker 1: what the ICC statute looks like. There was a structure
Speaker 1: of the court and the crimes that are available in
Speaker 1: The Clinton administration wanted to join ICEC, or at least
Speaker 1: made some noise about joining the IEC, and then ultimately decided,
Speaker 1: And so the US is not a member of the
Speaker 1: International Criminal Court at this point, and I think it's
Speaker 1: unlikely that it ever will. I think the reason behind
Speaker 1: that is that there is at least some fear on
Speaker 1: the part of US officials that US service members or
Speaker 1: US forces could end up being targets of prosecution by
Speaker 1: the ICC. The SEC has investigated the situation in Afghanistan,
Speaker 1: and indicated that there were reasons to believe that parts
Speaker 1: of the US operations in Afghanistan violated the ICC statute.
Speaker 1: The defendants in those cases, they're not cases yet, but
Speaker 1: if they turned out to be indictments or a restaurants,
Speaker 1: those defendants would be US service members or US officials.
Speaker 1: So the US doesn't want to join the ICEC because
Speaker 1: it doesn't want to make that kind of thing any easier.
Speaker 1: And with respect to Ukraine, though the US has I
Speaker 1: think been more cooperative, more open to, and complementary of
Speaker 1: the ICC than it has been at any time in
Speaker 1: the recent past. Are there other areas for criminal charges
Speaker 1: from the ICC in the Ukrainian invasion? The treatment of
Speaker 1: women and girls in this conflict has been achis and
Speaker 1: this is the case in every conflict, and so I
Speaker 1: would be interested to see if there are cases that
Speaker 1: the ICEC pursues that specifically prioritize the harms that affect
Speaker 1: women and girls. And this is not a criticism of anyone,
Speaker 1: but I think we should all be paying more attention
Speaker 1: to the various ways that women and girls have been
Speaker 1: treated abominably, torture, crimes of sexual violence, and all manner
Speaker 1: of harm. So I think even though there has been
Speaker 1: reporting on this, if not enough, and we haven't really
Speaker 1: paid a close attention to that issue as we should.
Speaker 1: Those are substantial harms. They're still happening, and they should
Speaker 1: lead to criminal charges. Thanks for speaking to this, Patrick,
Speaker 1: that's Professor Patrick Keenan of the University of Illinois College
Speaker 1: of Law. David Boys is a prominent litigator known for
Speaker 1: national cases from Microsoft to Bush, Fee, Gore, and Boys
Speaker 1: has been representing Jeffrey Epstein's victims pro bono for more
Speaker 1: than a decade. These were girls who were procured, transported
Speaker 1: across kept line of state lines. This was as commercial
Speaker 1: a sex trafficking operation as you can imagine it. Now
Speaker 1: he's suing JP Morgan Chase on behalf of victim Jane Doe,
Speaker 1: accusing the bank of supporting Epstein's sex trafficking network. Ep
Speaker 1: Morgan has denied any knowledge of epstein sex trafficking, even
Speaker 1: though the bank, in turn has sued its former top executive,
Speaker 1: Jess Staley, accusing him of sexually assaulting one of Epstein's victims.
Speaker 1: Joining me is Bloomberg Legal reporter Eva Benny Morrison, Eva
Speaker 1: tell Us about the nub of the plaintiff's case. In
Speaker 1: November last year, Jane Doe, who was a victim of
Speaker 1: Jeffrey Epstein, filed the lawsuit against JP Morgan, alleging at
Speaker 1: the bank facilitated and supported his sex trafficking network. Jane
Speaker 1: Doe alleges that by JP Morgan providing financial services to Epstein,
Speaker 1: it was part of his sex trafficking venture and it
Speaker 1: benefited from it as well. He had millions and millions
Speaker 1: of dollars moving through multiple accounts for the bank, which
Speaker 1: would have attracted high fees, which they say goes to
Speaker 1: the financial benefitsit element of this case. The lawyer behind
Speaker 1: this lawsuit is rather famous. David Boys. Tell us about him.
Speaker 1: David Boys is probably one of the most well known
Speaker 1: litigators in America. He has been a lawyer for fifty
Speaker 1: plus years. He's worked on some major cases, including the
Speaker 1: Microsoft antitrust case in the late nineties. He also has
Speaker 1: represented the victims of Jeffrey Epstein pro bono for more
Speaker 1: than a decade, and more controversially represented Harvey Weinstein and
Speaker 1: as the homes And. He's known for using hardball tactics
Speaker 1: no matter which side of the case he's on. Yes,
Speaker 1: he can be very aggressive, have a very aggressive sort
Speaker 1: of litigation style, which obviously has its supporters and its detractors.
Speaker 1: He really goes in hard in fighting for his clients.
Speaker 1: He's caught it a little bit of controversy, I guess
Speaker 1: for doing that, especially in the Harvey Weinstein case, when
Speaker 1: his firm signed off on a contract with a private
Speaker 1: investigator to look into some of the men who were
Speaker 1: coming forward making allegations about Weinstein and some of the
Speaker 1: journalists who were trying to report it. But I guess
Speaker 1: on the other side, he's had huge success in obtaining
Speaker 1: settlements for his clients and having some big wins in court,
Speaker 1: one of those against Prince Andrew. Explain how that came about,
Speaker 1: that's right. So this was part of the Epstein case.
Speaker 1: A victim of Jeffrey Epstein, a woman by the name
Speaker 1: of Virginia Dufray, was represented by Boys, and she alleged
Speaker 1: that Prince Andrew was one of the men who sexually
Speaker 1: assaulted her when she was working with Epstein. Epstein and
Speaker 1: Prince Andrew were friends, so on behalf of Virginia Boys
Speaker 1: sued Prince Andrew and that settled out of court. Last year,
Speaker 1: just before Prince Andrew was meant to be deposed about
Speaker 1: what he knew about Epstein's trafficking. JP Morgan is asking
Speaker 1: a federal judge to throw out the case. What are
Speaker 1: its arguments? JP Morgan says that Jane Doe hasn't propped
Speaker 1: shown that the bank knew or should have known, what
Speaker 1: Epstein was doing in terms of sex trafficking. Epstein was
Speaker 1: a client of JP Morgan between the late nineties. In
Speaker 1: two and thirteen, when the bank cut ties with him,
Speaker 1: Jane Doe was essentially saying that if they didn't have
Speaker 1: direct knowledge, then they ought to have known because there
Speaker 1: were so many red flags. Much of Jane Doo's case
Speaker 1: is centered around the relationship between Jeffrey Epstein and a
Speaker 1: former executive at the bank, a man named Jeff Daley.
Speaker 1: There has been a lot of emails and details come
Speaker 1: out about how strong their friendship was, and it hasn't
Speaker 1: reflected very well on Jeff Daley. JP Morgan has tried
Speaker 1: to say, yes, some of the conversations that he had
Speaker 1: on his work email with Epstein wit inappropriate, but they
Speaker 1: fell outside the scope of his employment, so they cannot
Speaker 1: be held responsible and as a bank, they didn't have
Speaker 1: a duty to non customers, meaning Jane Doo, and the
Speaker 1: bank went from defending Staley to suing Staley. Yes. Initially,
Speaker 1: when this laws it was filed, JP Morgan had said
Speaker 1: that the allegations made against Daily were speculatives essentially and
Speaker 1: not properly supported by fats. That strategy change earlier this
Speaker 1: month when the bank actually filed its own lawsuit against
Speaker 1: Jess Daily, saying that if damages are awarded against the bank,
Speaker 1: that he should be held liable for them. The banks
Speaker 1: also going after him to try and call back more
Speaker 1: than eighty million dollars it paid him during his time
Speaker 1: at JP Morgan, alleging that he was disloyal to the
Speaker 1: bank and he vouched for Epstein when they were trying
Speaker 1: to decide whether to keep him an honors a client
Speaker 1: and over his faithless service. How strong are the bank's arguments?
Speaker 1: How strong is its defense? I interviewed a few legal
Speaker 1: experts who said that the bank's defense was pretty strong
Speaker 1: and they did make some solid arguments. There is a
Speaker 1: lot of case law around who the banks have a
Speaker 1: duty too, and some of that law has found that
Speaker 1: banks don't have a duty to non customers or heart
Speaker 1: be held responsible for the actions of their clients. So
Speaker 1: that's something that certainly works in JP Morgan's favor. Another
Speaker 1: massive hurdle for Jane Doe is trying to prove that
Speaker 1: what Staley knew about Epstein sex trafficking, JP Morgan knew,
Speaker 1: and that's sort of an extra step and that's going
Speaker 1: to be a bit of a challenge. But a couple
Speaker 1: of the legal experts said, what's unusual about this case
Speaker 1: compared to other sex trafficking civil cases is that there
Speaker 1: is a lad of evidence and material suggesting that the
Speaker 1: bank ought to have known, so the emails, the huge
Speaker 1: amount of public reporting about Epstein's criminal investigations in Florida
Speaker 1: and elsewhere, So that might work in Jane Doo's dab here.
Speaker 1: And if the bank can't get this case thrown out,
Speaker 1: does it want to go to trial and be associated
Speaker 1: with Epstein? No, is the short answer. I think that
Speaker 1: the reputational damage here is a real risk, and no
Speaker 1: big huge entity JP Morgan will want to take that risk,
Speaker 1: and they will try and stop it going to trial
Speaker 1: to avoid all of these fallacious details coming out EVA.
Speaker 1: JP Morgan is also being sued by the Virgin Islands
Speaker 1: tell us about that suit. That's right. In a separate litigation,
Speaker 1: the US Virgin Islands file a similar suit against JP
Speaker 1: Morgan a couple of weeks after the Jane Doe suit
Speaker 1: late last year, US Virgin Islands alleges that JP Morgan
Speaker 1: all facilitated Jeffrey Epstein sex trafficking. Jeffrey Epstein had a
Speaker 1: private island in the US Virgin Islands and that's where
Speaker 1: he allegedly abused a number of young women and traffic
Speaker 1: number of young women as well. So JP Morgan is
Speaker 1: also putting up a fight to have that suit dismissed,
Speaker 1: and we're going to hear those arguments later in the week.
Speaker 1: It's hard to believe that so many years after Epstein's death,
Speaker 1: these cases are still being litigated and no sign of ending.
Speaker 1: After Gilain Maxwell was sentenced, there was a sort of
Speaker 1: feeling of finality. But the plaintiffs throughout this have been
Speaker 1: very focused on trying to hold the enablers of Epstein accountable.
Speaker 1: They've been let down again and again by the criminal
Speaker 1: justice system. Jeoffrey Epstein got a non prostitution agreement force
Speaker 1: or sitting minus for prostitution federal chargers in Florida in
Speaker 1: two thousand and eight, and then, of course he was
Speaker 1: arrested more than a decade later, finally on sex trafficking charges,
Speaker 1: and he committed suicide in a prison cell. So the
Speaker 1: plaintiffs in this case have really utilized the civil system
Speaker 1: in a bid to try and get some form of justice,
Speaker 1: and I think we're seeing a little bit of that
Speaker 1: at the moment, trying to hold those enablers accountable for
Speaker 1: allegedly turning a blind eye to what Estein was doing.
Speaker 1: Thanks either. That's Bloomberg Legal reporter Ava Benny Morrison. This
Speaker 1: is Bloomberg Law on Bloomberg Radio. I'm June Grosso.