How People Like Jeffrey Epstein Stash Their Money In The High End Real Estate Market

JP Morgan has responded to the U.S. Virgin Islands' (USVI) motion to strike several of its affirmative defenses in the ongoing lawsuit related to Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking operations. The bank argues that these defenses are crucial to demonstrate the alleged complicity of the USVI government in enabling Epstein’s activities.JP Morgan contends that high-ranking USVI officials, including former First Lady Cecile de Jongh, played a role in facilitating Epstein’s operations by managing his local companies and helping spread his influence throughout the government. The bank alleges that Epstein’s ties with local political figures allowed him to receive favorable treatment, such as tax benefits and reduced oversight, despite his known criminal background/The USVI's motion to strike these defenses is viewed by JP Morgan as an attempt to avoid exposing the government's own culpability. Conversely, the USVI argues that the bank’s defenses are baseless and are intended to deflect from its failure to act on clear signs of Epstein's criminal behavior​.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.610915.94.5.pdf (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

27 Elo 27min

JP Morgan has responded to the U.S. Virgin Islands' (USVI) motion to strike several of its affirmative defenses in the ongoing lawsuit related to Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking operations. The bank argues that these defenses are crucial to demonstrate the alleged complicity of the USVI government in enabling Epstein’s activities.JP Morgan contends that high-ranking USVI officials, including former First Lady Cecile de Jongh, played a role in facilitating Epstein’s operations by managing his local companies and helping spread his influence throughout the government. The bank alleges that Epstein’s ties with local political figures allowed him to receive favorable treatment, such as tax benefits and reduced oversight, despite his known criminal background/The USVI's motion to strike these defenses is viewed by JP Morgan as an attempt to avoid exposing the government's own culpability. Conversely, the USVI argues that the bank’s defenses are baseless and are intended to deflect from its failure to act on clear signs of Epstein's criminal behavior​.(commercial at 7:20)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.610915.94.5.pdf (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

27 Elo 24min

In the 1990s, Jeffrey Epstein reportedly lobbied then-President Bill Clinton on behalf of his primary client—and VIP financier—Les Wexner, who owned The Limited and Victoria’s Secret. Epstein aimed to influence U.S. trade laws, specifically targeting regulations that could have benefited Wexner’s clothing business, potentially saving The Limited up to $1.2 billion. While no evidence suggests that these lobbying efforts led to actual legislative changes, they served as Epstein’s early entry point into high‑level political influence and connections.Despite Epstein’s access—including multiple White House visits and social engagement within Clinton’s inner circle—there is no indication that the trade lobbying resulted in any tangible outcome. His efforts appear to have elevated his personal political clout more than they did anything else for Wexner’s business interests.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11482131/Jeffrey-Epstein-tried-lobby-Bill-Clinton-change-trade-laws-behalf-Les-Wexner.htmlBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

27 Elo 12min

n June 2023, lawyers representing Jeffrey Epstein’s victims sued JPMorgan asked U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff to recall Jamie Dimon—and two other executives—for fresh depositions. They argued the bank strategically delayed production of key documents—such as a 22-page email timeline and internal Epstein-related review materials—delivered only after Dimon’s May 26 deposition, thereby depriving plaintiffs the chance to question him on them. The late disclosure, including documents produced “5:45 p.m. on a Sunday,” was described by one attorney as “untimely” and “inexplicably slow”Judge Rakoff flatly denied the request for additional depositions of Dimon and other JPMorgan officials, ruling the existing record was sufficient and closing the door on calls for re-questioning. Thus, although plaintiffs sought to enhance accountability and clarity using newly surfaced evidence, the expected opportunity to revisit Dimon’s testimony never materialized.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Lawyer for Jeffrey Epstein accuser wants to question JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon again | Fox BusinessBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

27 Elo 11min

Ken Starr—a former independent counsel famed for the Clinton–Lewinsky investigation—was one of the high-powered attorneys who joined Epstein’s defense team during the 2006–2008 case in Florida. Starr’s influence proved pivotal; according to Miami Herald reporter Julie K. Brown’s book Perversion of Justice, he orchestrated a “scorched‑earth” campaign that leveraged his political connections in the Bush administration to pressure the Justice Department into approving a highly favorable plea deal for Epstein. Starr even wrote an aggressive eight‑page letter to Deputy Attorney General Mark Filip arguing that prosecutors were acting improperly—an approach reminiscent of Starr’s own high-profile “Starr Report” while investigating President ClintonThough Starr’s aggressive defense helped secure Epstein’s notorious 2008 non‑prosecution agreement—which shielded Epstein from broader federal trafficking charges and limited his punishment to just over a year in county jail under lenient conditions—there's no record of any serious repercussions for Starr himself. His legal tactics may be viewed as emblematic of how elite influence and aggressive lobbying can skew justice in favor of the powerful, but Starr faced no formal sanctions or professional fallout from his involvementTo contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comSource:https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jul/13/ken-starr-jeffrey-epstein-bookBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

26 Elo 17min

On August 22, 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice released redacted transcripts and audio recordings of a two-day interview it conducted in July with Ghislaine Maxwell, who is serving a 20-year federal prison sentence for her role in Jeffrey Epstein’s sex-trafficking ring. During the interview, Maxwell denied ever seeing any inappropriate behavior by former President Donald Trump, describing him as a “gentleman in all respects,” and insisted she “never witnessed the president in any inappropriate setting in any way.” She also rejected the existence of a so-called “client list,” countering years of speculation, and claimed to have no knowledge of blackmail or illicit recordings tied to Epstein.In addition to defending high-profile figures, Maxwell expressed doubt that Epstein’s death was a suicide, while also rejecting the notion of an elaborate conspiracy or murder plot. The release of the transcripts—handled under the Trump-era Justice Department—has stirred sharp political debate. Trump allies have framed her remarks as vindication, while critics and Epstein’s survivors question her credibility, pointing to her conviction and suggesting her words may be aimed at influencing potential clemency or political favor.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Interview Transcript - Maxwell 2025.07.24 (Redacted).pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

26 Elo 13min

On August 22, 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice released redacted transcripts and audio recordings of a two-day interview it conducted in July with Ghislaine Maxwell, who is serving a 20-year federal prison sentence for her role in Jeffrey Epstein’s sex-trafficking ring. During the interview, Maxwell denied ever seeing any inappropriate behavior by former President Donald Trump, describing him as a “gentleman in all respects,” and insisted she “never witnessed the president in any inappropriate setting in any way.” She also rejected the existence of a so-called “client list,” countering years of speculation, and claimed to have no knowledge of blackmail or illicit recordings tied to Epstein.In addition to defending high-profile figures, Maxwell expressed doubt that Epstein’s death was a suicide, while also rejecting the notion of an elaborate conspiracy or murder plot. The release of the transcripts—handled under the Trump-era Justice Department—has stirred sharp political debate. Trump allies have framed her remarks as vindication, while critics and Epstein’s survivors question her credibility, pointing to her conviction and suggesting her words may be aimed at influencing potential clemency or political favor.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Interview Transcript - Maxwell 2025.07.24 (Redacted).pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

26 Elo 14min

The official story has always painted Alex Acosta as the man solely responsible for Jeffrey Epstein’s non-prosecution agreement, but that version is designed to mislead. Acosta was a mid-level figure, a convenient scapegoat set up to absorb public outrage while the real decisions were made in Washington. Attorney General Michael Mukasey, Deputy Attorney General Mark Filip, and other senior DOJ brass were the ones who met with Epstein’s powerful legal team, signed off on the immunity clause, and ensured the deal protected not only Epstein but his co-conspirators. Acosta merely carried out orders that had already been determined above him, and when the truth started to unravel, he was offered up as the fall guy to shield the institution.The failure to subpoena everyone involved—from state prosecutors to Main Justice leadership—reveals that Congress is more interested in theater than accountability. By focusing blame on Acosta, the system preserved itself, kept survivors from the truth, and avoided admitting the uncomfortable reality that DOJ itself bent the law to protect a billionaire predator. True justice requires putting every official who touched the deal under oath, including Mukasey and Filip, to expose how the NPA was engineered. Until that happens, the scandal remains unresolved and the cover-up intact, with Acosta remembered not as the architect of Epstein’s freedom, but as the shield sacrificed to keep the powerful safe.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

26 Elo 10min