Sen. Wyden: Banks Knew About Jeffrey Epstein and Looked Away

Summary

---

Episode Overview

Theme:
In this episode of The Bulwark, Katherine Rampell interviews Senator Ron Wyden about his recent investigation into major banks’ relationships with Jeffrey Epstein. The discussion centers on revelations from a new Senate report exposing how Wall Street banks knowingly handled Epstein’s suspicious financial activity for years, failed to report it appropriately, and enabled his sex trafficking crimes. The conversation dives into the evidence against banks and high-level executives, what regulatory agencies need to do better, and what accountability might look like.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Epstein's Crimes Enabled by Wall Street Banks

• Senator Wyden’s main finding:
  • Banks played a crucial enabling role in Epstein’s sex trafficking by “looking the other way” rather than reporting obvious red flags in his finances.
  • Not just junior staff, but top bank executives were aware of Epstein’s activities and still allowed them to continue.
• Wyden’s striking quote:

  “Epstein would not have gotten away with all this sex trafficking for so incredibly long if banks had done their job and followed the law… The bank executives knew Epstein was dirty and they basically looked the other way.” (00:46 - 01:23)

2. Evidence of Banks’ Complicity & Failure to Report

• Examples from the Senate report:
  • Deutsche Bank:
    • Most recently discovered: failed to report over $250 million in suspicious transactions related to Epstein—a violation only unearthed in the week of the podcast.
  • JP Morgan:
    • Delayed reporting over $1 billion in suspicious Epstein-linked transfers to the Treasury.
  • Bank of America:
    • Failed to effectively screen and report $170 million in Epstein payments.
  • All banks publicly deny wrongdoing.
• Rampell notes:

  “All three banks deny that they acted inappropriately.” (03:29)

• Senator Wyden’s response:
  • The banks issued retroactive reports only after significant harm was already done.
  • Evidence includes emails from bankers referring to Epstein’s “preference for young girls,” yet the financial activity was still not reported.

  “We’ve gotten emails… about Epstein’s preference for young girls, but they didn’t report his money. So this comes up again and again, and I think it was because they could get away with it.” (03:59 - 04:18)

3. Motivation: Negligence or Deliberate Complicity?

• Wyden’s assertion:
  • Banks were motivated by profit; ignoring red flags meant more fees and referrals from Epstein.
  • Delayed or missing Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) were not simple incompetence but seemed to be deliberate, at least at the upper levels.
  • Some help came from the Biden administration but far from enough to meet what was required in oversight and enforcement.

  “Most of what they reported… is retroactive. So the damage was done. Women and girls had been hurt, and they’re going, oh, my goodness. We were all over it. And the fact is they weren’t.” (03:59 - 04:33)

• Names specific executives, e.g., Mary Erdoes at JP Morgan, who remain in powerful positions.

4. Regulatory Failures and What Needs to Change

• Wyden’s recommendations:
  • Regulatory agencies (Treasury, Federal Reserve, DOJ, especially FinCEN) must act on the report’s “roadmap” for prosecution and investigation.
  • Focus first on what was not reported at the time, not just what was reported retroactively.

  “[Agencies] ought to follow the roadmap and start with what wasn’t reported because this should have been, for the most part, reported to Treasury...” (02:56)

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Sen. Wyden:

  “The people that were involved in this, in the banks, were not some junior deputy bottle washer kind of, you know, person. They were top people. They need to be held accountable.” (01:24)

• Katherine Rampell:

  “Is your view that this was negligence, incompetence, or something potentially more deliberate?” (03:33)

• Sen. Wyden:

  “They could get away with it… they always talk about, well, I reported such and such. Most of what they reported, Catherine, is retroactive. So the damage was done. Women and girls had been hurt.” (04:01)

---

Important Timestamps

• 00:00–00:46 — Introduction and background on the Epstein report.
• 00:46–01:45 — Key findings: high-level bank complicity, roadmap for accountability.
• 02:09–03:29 — Specific evidence: Deutsche Bank, JP Morgan, Bank of America failures.
• 03:29–04:45 — The banks’ denial, retroactive reporting, and question of negligence vs. deliberate wrongdoing.

---

Tone & Language

The tone throughout is direct, serious, and urgent. Senator Wyden speaks candidly about the failures of major banks and regulatory agencies, calling for greater accountability and prosecution. Katherine Rampell’s questions are sharp and focused, keeping the conversation centered on the critical details and implications of the Senate’s findings.

---

This summary captures the essential content and gravity of the episode, highlighting revelations about Wall Street’s role in enabling Epstein’s crimes, the damning evidence unearthed, and the urgent need for regulatory action.

Transcript

[A]

Hi, everyone. I'm Katherine Rampel, Economics editor at the Bulwark, and I am here with Senator Ron Wyden. Delighted to talk with him about all things trade, banking, money laundering, all sorts of sexy stuff today. Senator, thanks so much for joining me. I'm wondering if we could talk first of all about a recent report that you released relating to Wall Street Bank's relationships with Jeffrey Epstein and others in that orbit for the last few years. As I understand it, you and your team have been looking into the late Jeffrey Epstein's finances. What have you uncovered and what surprised you most?

[B]

What is the most important single aspect of this, Katherine, is Epstein would not have gotten away with all this sex trafficking for so incredibly long if banks had done their job and followed the law. That is the single most important finding of our report. The bank executives knew Epstein was dirty and they basically looked the other way. And what we do in the report is lay out a roadmap for prosecution and further investigation. And the other point that really has been missed is that the people that were involved in this, in the banks, were not some junior deputy bottle washer kind of, you know, person. They were top people. They need to be held accountable. Some of them, for example, Mary Erdos, for example JP Morgan, they are still there and getting bonuses and the like.

[A]

So can you dig in a little bit and explain to people what evidence we have that the banks and some of these particularly high level executives may have known what they were financing, may have known that their customer was using their accounts potentially for lawbreaking?

[B]

We go through a variety of examples in the report, but let me tell you about one that is really just hot off the presses that, that are just in the last couple of days, Deutsche bank failed to promptly report to Treasury More than $250 million in suspicious transactions tied to Epstein that is brand new, that is this week. And it's clear that these big banks just didn't do their job. They looked the other way, which is the title of the report. Why did they do it? In my view, mostly because it led to more money for them. In other words, if they stopped dealing with Epstein directly, they could say, oh, we're getting clean. But then they would take all of his referrals and there are example after example of those kinds of things. And because you follow the federal regulatory agencies I know very, very closely, I mean treasury, the Federal Reserve, doj, all of these agencies ought to follow the roadmap and start with what wasn't reported because this should have been, for the most part reported to treasury, and you deal with them more than I do. But FinCEN is kind of the lead in terms of treasury, so.

[A]

You mentioned the Deutsche bank example. I believe your report also found that JP Morgan delayed reporting over $1 billion in suspicious Epstein LinkedIn transfers to Treasury. Bank of America failed to properly screen and report $170 million in payments to Epstein. I should clarify. All three banks deny that they acted inappropriately. Is your view that this was negligence, incompetence, or something potentially more deliberate?

[B]

We've gotten emails, for example, from bankers talking about Epstein's preference for young girls, but they didn't report his money. So this comes up again and again, and I think it was because they could get away with it. In other words, they always talk about, well, I reported such and such. Most of what they reported, Catherine, is retroactive. So the damage was done. Women and girls had been hurt, and they're going, oh, my goodness. We were all over it. And the fact is they weren't. And they had a friendly administration that was supportive of it. And by the way, the, the Biden people helped a bit, but not a whole lot. Nowhere near what I thought was necessary in terms of getting the sars, the, the reports.

[A]

And to clarify, is your finding or contention that the banks had him as a customer and, you know, maybe that was inappropriate, full stop, or that they explicitly financed some of his unlawful activities?