Mega Edition: Why Won't Congress Chase The Epstein Money Trail? (7/9/26)

Summary

The Epstein Chronicles — Mega Edition: Why Won’t Congress Chase the Epstein Money Trail?
Host: Bobby Capucci
Release Date: July 10, 2026

---

Episode Overview

In this "Mega Edition" of The Epstein Chronicles, host Bobby Capucci provides a deep exploration of the ongoing efforts to unmask the financial networks that enabled Jeffrey Epstein's decades-long criminal enterprise. The episode centers on recent legal actions against major banks (Deutsche Bank, JP Morgan, others), the role of institutions like the U.S. Virgin Islands, and a scathing critique of Congress—particularly the GOP—for refusing to subpoena Epstein’s bank records. Capucci combines analysis of investigative articles, court documents, and Congressional hearings to argue that systemic protectionism continues to obscure the finances behind Epstein’s operation, shielding powerful players from accountability.

Tone: Unfiltered, urgent, and confrontational—with moments of exasperation, dark humor, and explicit language aimed at institutional hypocrisy.

---

Key Topics & Discussion Points

1. Deutsche Bank Lawsuit & Victim Settlements

[00:01 – 15:06]

• Inside Edition Article Summary: Capucci delves into Chris Spargo's report on a survivor ("Jane Doe #1") who received $7.4M from Epstein's estate after 15 years of abuse. Her ongoing lawsuit against Deutsche Bank alleges that the bank knowingly benefited from Epstein’s sex trafficking operation.
• Victim’s Ordeal:
  • Jane Doe describes being purchased by Jean-Luc Brunel at 14, trafficked to Epstein, and forced into a “cult-like” existence for over a decade ([03:03]).
  • Capucci emphasizes the normalization of abuse in Epstein’s inner circle:

    “When you have all of society’s heavy hitters hanging out down at Epstein’s house and nobody is saying that this shit is wrong... what’s a little 14-year-old kid supposed to think?” ([03:03])

• Settlement Mechanics & Critique:
  • Settlements required victims to sign broad releases protecting a huge array of individuals and institutions from future claims ([04:20]).
  • Capucci critiques the victim fund as “throwing a few pennies and shutting up,” suspecting it was designed to protect Epstein’s “buddies” more than make victims whole ([07:56]).
  • Key Quote:

    “If you want to be cynical about it, the whole entire settlement fund was set up to protect Jeffrey Epstein’s buddies…” ([08:41])

• Deutsche Bank’s Defense & Judge’s Rulings:
  • The bank attempted to dismiss the lawsuit based on the victim’s prior release, but Judge Jed Rakoff let several critical claims proceed, including “knowingly benefiting from participating in a sex trafficking venture.” ([10:54])
  • RICO charges were dismissed, fueling Capucci’s suspicions about selective justice:

    “But RICO’s good enough for Keith Raniere, RICO’s good enough for R. Kelly, but not Jeffrey Epstein…” ([11:50])

• Systemic Protection & Financial Sector Complicity:
  • Capucci highlights Deutsche Bank’s 2020 $150M fine for Epstein dealings, calling fines “slaps on the wrist” that let “scumbags” avoid accountability ([13:23]).
  • Quote:

    “The people at the very top...they don’t care about anybody. You really think they care about you?” ([13:23])

---

2. The U.S. Virgin Islands’ Complicity and Epstein’s Mystery Bank

[15:13 – 34:52]

• Virgin Islands’ Role:
  • Recap of a 2020 NYT article on Epstein’s creation of “Southern Country International,” an offshore bank licensed after his sex offender conviction ([16:53]).
  • Host asserts the Virgin Islands profited from, and enabled, Epstein’s crimes via regulatory laxity and lucrative tax arrangements.
• Questions of Oversight & Corruption:
  • The bank operated with minimal oversight, conducted few (if any) real transactions, and received multi-million dollar transfers after Epstein’s death ([18:36], [19:51]).
  • Capucci on regulatory failures:

    “They knew exactly what was up. They chose to do the Helen Keller...” ([28:11])

• Follow the Money:
  • After Epstein’s death, unexplained transfers totaling over $12M flowed to Southern Country. Funds quickly disappeared from accounts, with estate lawyers offering vague explanations ([20:33], [29:27]).
• Deep Ties & Greed:
  • Epstein’s banking references included powerful corporate leaders—often claiming ignorance—and local officials benefited directly and indirectly ([28:47], [32:25]).
  • Tax breaks granted to Epstein companies are cited as evidence of the territory’s greed and complicity ([30:42], [32:37]).
• Victim Compensation vs. Government Windfall:
  • Capucci highlights the USVI’s $105M settlement—questioning whether true justice is served when victims get less than the government ([21:07], [30:00]).
• Broader Implications:
  • The host asserts the USVI is no true “victim,” but an enabler still angling for further financial gain ([33:36]).

---

3. Congressional Cowardice: The Blocked Subpoena for Epstein’s Money Trail

[34:57 – 49:00]

• Opening Rant:
  • Capucci (joined by Host 3) lambastes Republican lawmakers for blocking a Democratic motion to subpoena banks linked to Epstein’s suspicious $1.5B in transactions ([34:57], [35:24]).
  • Notable Quote:

    “Transparency is apparently a four-letter word...they had one simple job: vote to subpoena the man’s bank records…the kind of financial documentation that could have connected the dots…” ([34:58])

• Bipartisan Hypocrisy:
  • Both parties are critiqued, but with emphasis on GOP obstruction masquerading as “principle.”

    “The hypocrisy isn’t just glaring, it’s practically blinding...” ([35:24])

  • Lawmakers are accused of shielding donors and allied elites under pretext and procedure ([38:22]).
• Highlights from USA Today Article:
  • Recap of Jamie Raskin (D-MD)’s attempt to subpoena JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Deutsche Bank, and Bank of New York Mellon for all records related to Epstein ([38:24], [40:01]).
  • Republican Chair Jim Jordan leads the GOP move to table the subpoena without discussion—a move Capucci finds suspect due to Ohio State abuse parallels ([43:33]).
  • Quote:

    “If you want to go after somebody, this is not rocket science. Follow the money. That’s how you nail these people.” ([46:15])

• The Real Reason for Inaction:
  • Capucci theorizes that exposing the money trail would reveal the scope of elite complicity—not just with Epstein but with broader corruption ([46:35]).
  • Criticizes Congress and the DOJ for lack of will or integrity, suggesting they're more eager to censor “hate speech” than confront financial crimes of the elite ([41:12], [48:58]).
• RICO Redux:
  • Reiteration of the point:

    “Yo, chew on that for a minute and ask yourself how was this never RICO’d? ... Not Jeffrey Epstein, not Ghislaine Maxwell. Ask yourself why.” ([48:16])

---

Notable Quotes (with Timestamps)

• “When you have all of society’s heavy hitters hanging out down at Epstein’s house and nobody is saying that this shit is wrong... what’s a little 14-year-old kid supposed to think?” — Host 2 ([03:03])
• “If you want to be cynical about it, the whole entire settlement fund was set up to protect Jeffrey Epstein’s buddies…” — Host 2 ([08:41])
• “But RICO’s good enough for Keith Raniere, RICO’s good enough for R. Kelly, but not Jeffrey Epstein…” — Host 2 ([11:50])
• “Transparency is apparently a four-letter word...they had one simple job: vote to subpoena the man’s bank records…” — Host 3 ([34:58])
• “The hypocrisy isn’t just glaring, it’s practically blinding.” — Host 3 ([35:24])
• “If you want to go after somebody, this is not rocket science. Follow the money. That’s how you nail these people.” — Host 3 ([46:15])
• “Yo, chew on that for a minute and ask yourself how was this never RICO’d? ... Not Jeffrey Epstein, not Ghislaine Maxwell. Ask yourself why.” — Host 1 ([48:16])
• “It was about power protecting power, as it always does.” — Host 3 ([38:06])

---

Important Segments & Timestamps

• Deutsche Bank Lawsuit, Victim Testimony & Settlement Agreements: [00:01 – 15:06]
• Virgin Islands’ Role, Epstein’s Mystery Bank & Money Laundering: [15:13 – 34:52]
• Congressional Refusal to Subpoena — The Political Cover-Up: [34:57 – 49:00]

---

Conclusion & Takeaways

• Capucci repeatedly challenges both legal and political systems for their failure to “follow the money,” arguing that financial institutions, regulators, and both political parties are complicit in shielding the full story of Epstein’s criminal operation.
• The episode calls for real accountability—beyond financial settlements—demanding “bracelets” (arrests) for enablers at every level.
• The host’s unfiltered style and focus on documentation (“follow the money”) are a call to action, pushing listeners to demand transparency, vigilance, and continued scrutiny from media and public institutions.

---

All referenced articles and documents are available in the episode’s description box.

Transcript

[Host 1]

What's up everyone?

[Host 2]

And welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles. On today's episode, we're going to talk a little bit more about the U. S Virgin Islands and the various lawsuits that are making their way through the system as we speak. And today's article from Inside Edition is pivoting away from the JP Morgan conversation and focusing on the Deutsche bank suit. So let's get into this article from Inside Edition and let's see what the author Chris Spargo has come up with. Headline, Jeffrey Epstein, rape victim who got $7.4 million after 15 years of abuse gets trial date and Deutsche bank suit. And once again, the author of this article is Chris Spargo. Details of the woman's settlement and as well as the document she had to sign in order to receive that money have been made public due to her ongoing lawsuit against Deutsche Bank. The estate of Jeffrey Epstein paid $7.4 million to one of the pedophile's survivors. According to court documents obtained by Inside Digital. Details of the woman's settlement with Epstein's estate as well as the document she had to sign in order to receive that money have been made public due to her ongoing lawsuit against Deutsche Bank. The woman identified as Jane Doe number one in court papers claims in her complaint that Deutsche bank knowingly benefited from participating in a sex trafficking venture. And I don't think there's any doubt at this point that Epstein and his behavior was one of the worst kept secrets within the financial sector. Deutsche bank for their part, denies Jane Doe's allegations and any wrongdoing. A trial date has now been set for September and we also know that in October there is the trial date for J.P. morgan. So we're going to have consecutive months it looks like anyway, with some new information coming out from the start of these trials from 2003 when Doe was first introduced to Epstein and and through her eventual separation from Epstein and his organization. Fifteen years later, Epstein and his co conspirators used extreme measures of force, fraud and coercion to cause Jane Doe number one to engage in commercial sex and to remain obedient to the organization. Doe alleges in her 163 page complaint having been conditioned that the sexual abuse was normal and and knowing that everyone surrounding Epstein, including accountants, lawyers, bankers and other people, were aware of the sex abuse. Jane Doe number one was coerced into a cult like life controlled by Epstein and others to be sexually abused and sexually trafficked. And once again, if you put the pieces together, I think it's relatively obvious who Jane Doe Number one might be here.

[Host 1]

And if that is the case, and

[Host 2]

it is who I think it is, I don't see how the banks are gonna wiggle out of this one. And that's because of all of the intimate knowledge this person would have of the inner workings of Jeffrey Epstein's criminal enterprise. Now think about it. You're purchased from your parents by Jean Luc Brunel as the middleman. Then you're brought to America and sold to Jeffrey Epstein. And then from there the grooming process begins. And then from that it turns into the normalization process, right, like she says here. And when you have all of society's heavy hitters hanging out down at Epstein's house and nobody is saying that this shit is wrong. And not only that, but also engaging in it with Epstein. Some of these folks, what's a little 14 year old kid who was sold to Jeffrey Epstein supposed to think? Of course they're going to think what they're doing is normal. And that once again brings into focus just how dangerous enabling somebody like Jeffrey Epstein is. The more these movers and shakers validated Jeffrey Epstein's existence and the easier it was for him to carry out his bullshit. It's pretty clear what happened here. Finally, after being sexually abused and trafficked by Epstein for 15 years, Doe says she made her escape in 2018. She later alleges that in those years under Epstein's control, the pedophile committed the following sexual offenses. Sexual misconduct as Epstein engaged in sexual intercourse with. With Jane Doe without her consent. Remember, she was purchased, 14 years old. Rape in the first degree. As Epstein engaged in sexual intercourse with Jane Doe by forcible compulsion. Criminal sexual act in the first degree. As Epstein engaged in oral sexual conduct with Jane Doe by forcible compulsion. Forcible touching as Epstein intentionally and for no legitimate purpose, forcibly sexually touched Jane Doe for the purpose of degrading or abusing her, or for the purpose of gratifying his own sexual desire. Sexual abuse in the third degree. As Epstein inserted a foreign object in the vagina of Jane Doe by forcible compulsion. Aggravated sexual assault in the first degree. As Epstein inserted a foreign object in Jane Doe's vagina, causing physical injury, but by forcible compulsion. And all of this, remember, was happening while she was basically a slave of Epstein. And when we say that about this person, we mean it. When you're bought by somebody at 14 years old and brought to a different country and put into this environment where all of this is normalized, what else should we call you in the documents Doe does not say how how old she was when she met Epstein, nor does she explain how she made her escape. She sought a settlement from the victim's compensation fund after Epstein's death. Well, that sounds like a no brainer. If she was abused from the time she was 14 years old and purchased by this sick bastard and his pal Jean Luc Brunel, I would think that whatever money she got is probably not enough. Jordana Feldman, the administrator of the fund, said in an August 2021 press release that the fund paid $121 million to more than 135 victims. A little more than $1 million per. Meanwhile, the government got the lion's share of all of this with taxes. It had previously been revealed in court during the federal trial of Ghislaine Maxwell that one victim received $1.5 million from the fundamental and a second witness testifying against Epstein's British born Enabler received a $5 million settlement. In exchange for their settlements, the victims were required to sign a five page document. Inside Edition Digital obtained that document which states that in consideration of the settlement amount, the individual releases and forever discharges any current and former principals, officers to directors, stockholders, managers, members, partners, limited partners, trustees, beneficiaries, administrators, agents, employees, attorneys, predecessors, successors, assigns and affiliates, and any entities or individuals who are, have or ever been engaged by, whether as independent contractors or otherwise employed by or or worked in any capacity for Jeffrey E. Epstein andor the Epstein estate from any and all claims, demands, actions, causes of actions, suits, debts, dues, sums of money, accounts, variances, trespasses, damages and judgments, whether sounding in equity, tort, common law, contract, statute, regulation or otherwise, and whether now existing here, hereafter, existing or revived in the future, whatsoever in law, admiralty, equity or otherwise, including without limitation any and all claims or causes of action that arise or may arise from or which otherwise concern acts of sexual abuse or sex trafficked by Mr. Epstein. Once signed, the full settlement amount would be wired to the claimant within 15 days. So basically, take your few pennies and shut up. The whole entire settlement fund turned out to be not so great of an idea in my opinion. Now of course, people getting made whole and getting taken care of as far as financially for the abuse they suffered is something that should have been done a long time ago. But with hindsight as our guide, it certainly looks like this fund was set up with with the hope that after these payments were paid out that all of this would go away. And like usual, their hope was meaning people like Epstein and the People that were participating in Epstein's criminal enterprise and enabling it, they figured, throw a few dollars at this and it's all going to go away. Because that's what history tells us. Rich people can throw money at a problem and it goes away. And that's been the favorite strategy for anybody involved with, with Jeffrey Epstein and Jeffrey Epstein himself. And we saw it with this fund. That's what it was. The estate knew. The estate knew that they were in jeopardy. They were exposed. So setting the fund up was a good idea for them. And once again, just to reiterate, how is it, okay, that the government got the lion's share of that money? Deutsche bank unsuccessfully tried to use this settlement agreement to dismiss the case against them in court. Plaintiff's claims are Released by the April 28, 2022 General Release and Settlement Agreement that plaintiff entered into with the Epstein estate, which contains a broad release of any and all sex claims, including those related to acts of sexual abuse or sex trafficking by Epstein against not only Epstein and his estate, but also against a wide array of other individuals and entities, and including any entity that was ever engaged by or worked in any capacity for Epstein. Deutsche bank writes as an affirmative defense in their response to Doe's complaint. In exchange for giving that broad release, plaintiff received a substantial settlement payment from the Epstein estate. So in other words, if you want to be cynical about it, the whole entire settlement fund was set up to protect Jeffrey Epstein's buddies, to protect people like this. The judge ultimately agreed to dismiss eight of the 12 counts. But four of the claims asserted by Doe are still part of the case. The claim that the defendants knowingly benefited from participating in a sex trafficking venture. The claim that the defendant obstructed enforcement of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act. The claim that the defendants negligently failed to exercise reasonable care to prevent physical harm. The claim that the defendants negligently failed to exercise reasonable care as a banking institution providing non routine banking. The judge also weighed in on how much legal protection in the settlement agreement signed by DO affords Deutsche Bank. Deutsche bank also argues that the settlement agreement was intended to resolve a broad class of claims potentially asserted by by DB Jane Doe, including claims against Deutsche Bank, Judge Jed Rakoff wrote in his opinion allowing the case to proceed in trial in September. But this argument is sheer speculation at best and hardly sufficient to meet the high standard of evidence third party beneficiary status. Among the counts dismissed by the court were intentional infliction of emotional distress, participating in a sex trafficking venture, RICO violations, and aiding abetting and inducing a sex trafficking venture. So of course they dropped the rico, right? We can't have RICO in this case at all. Not even a cent of it. Not even one little whiff of rico. But rico's good enough for Keith Raynery, rico's good enough for R. Kelly, but not Jeffrey Epstein. What is the difference between Jeffrey Epstein, R. Kelly and Keith Rainiery?

[Host 1]

They're all rich, right?

[Host 2]

They all have a bunch of dough. But the one thing that Epstein has that the other two knuckleheads couldn't even dream of is political power, political connections, and of course, protection. So it really shouldn't be a shock that we've never seen a real RICO case or RICO statutes used when it comes to Epstein. But we see it used with Everybody else. In 2020, Deutsche bank, as part of their settlement agreement with, agreed to pay a $150 million fine for its dealings with Epstein between 2013 and 2018 after an investigation by the New York Department of Financial Services alleged that bankers overlooked multiple red flags about the pedophile's past and failed to properly monitor how his funds were being distributed. A regulator claimed that very few problematic transactions were were ever questioned. And even when they were, they were

[Host 1]

usually cleared without satisfactory explanation.

[Host 2]

In that 2020 report, which was obtained by Inside Edition Digital, Deutsche bank did not respond to Inside Digital's request for comment about the allegations made by Jane Doe in court filings. Well, we all know that Deutsche bank is the preferred destination for scumbags worldwide. So is it a shock that they were balling out with Jeffrey Epstein, profiting, making a bunch of dough, all the while piggybacking on Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking enterprise. I mean, it's not a shock to me. You know what would be a shock to me? If these financial institutions didn't have these kind of allegations against them. Because they're filled with absolute scumbags. And the people at the very top when we're talking about these financial institutions, they don't care about anybody. You really think they care about you? Or you feeding your family or you paying your bills? They don't give one single shit. And they continue with their behavior time and time again because there's never ever any real repercussions. It's always some kind of financial fine, a slap on the wrist. And the same old story gets told over and over again. And we're gonna see the same thing here. Nobody's gonna get in trouble as far as legally, nobody's going to do prison time.

[Host 1]

Oh, we'll get Some apologies, and we'll

[Host 2]

hear about how they're going to fix their internal workings and make sure this never happens again.

[Host 1]

But the reality is, inside of the

[Host 2]

financial sector right now, as we speak, many, many people as scummy or scummier than Jeffrey Epstein are up to the very same things that Jeffrey Epstein was up to. And these financial institutions are right on board, once again going along for the ride.

[Host 1]

All right, folks, that's going to do

[Host 2]

it for this one. All of the information that goes with the episode can be found in the description box.

[Host 1]

What's up, everyone? And welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles. As we continue to watch the lawsuit down in the US Virgin Islands make its way through the court, I think it's important to remember that the US Virgin Islands itself played a part in helping Jeffrey Epstein maintain his criminal enterprise. And not only that, but he was given all kinds of advantages down in the US Virgin Islands as far as taxes and other business type of arrangements go. Meanwhile, the US Virgin Islands is over here yelling and screaming that everybody else is complicit while they are the arbiters of justice and. And the only ones who really care about making sure people are held responsible. But is that really the case? Is the US Virgin Islands really in this for justice, or are they just in it to make some more money? Today's episode, we're going to go back to a New York Times article that was originally posted in February of 2020. Headline, Jeffrey Epstein's mystery bank came alive after his death, receiving millions of dollars from his estate. This article was authored by Matthew Goldstein and Steve Eder. In the years after Jeffrey Epstein registered as a sex offender, he closed his money management firm and started a business to develop algorithms and mine DNA and financial databases. Then he set up a bank. In a banking license application reviewed by

[Host 2]

the New York Times, Epstein described himself

[Host 1]

as one of the investing world's pioneers and said he wanted to pursue the dynamic discipline of international banking. One of the pioneers, huh? The pioneers of degeneracy. The pioneers of diddling children. Is that what you mean, egg Dick? Officials in the Virgin Islands, the US Territory where Epstein set up most of his businesses, approved a license for him in 2014 to run one of the territory's first international banking entities, a specialized bank that can do business only with offshore clients. The approval was unusual given Epstein's status as a convicted sex offender. Well, not really. When you pull the layers back and you start looking at the people who were involved, you had all of the powerful people that were working with Epstein The Bryants, the de Jongs, and they were all benefiting from his patronage. And then all of a sudden, he's able to set up the first bank of its kind within the territory of the US Virgin Island. And nobody has any other questions for the territory here. Nobody's going to ask them what their role was. It was up to JP Morgan to do that. Where's the legacy media? The bank, called Southern Country International, renewed

[Host 2]

its license for each of the next

[Host 1]

five years, but it's unclear whether it conducted any business or had any customers. Epstein, who died while in federal custody last summer following his arrest on sex trafficking charges, does not appear to have done any marketing for the bank or hired much staff. You want to talk about a wash shop, a place to go and wash money, you're looking at it.

[Host 2]

And when you look at Epstein for

[Host 1]

what he really is, besides a diddler, besides. Besides a molester, he's a money mover. He's a man who knows how to hide money. He's a man who knows how to wash money, and he's a man who knows how to make sure that the government has no idea where you're parking it. So you don't have to be a brainiac to figure out what he needed his own bank for. The bank was created under a territorial law that lacked many of the oversight requirements banks are usually subject to, and its regulatory file is largely empty. A lawyer for Epstein told officials in the U.S. virgin Islands in 2018 that the Southern country had not commenced operations, and regulators in the territory said they did not exercise oversight of the bank because it did not appear to be doing any business. Why did you guys set it up in the first place? The US Virgin Islands still has not answered that question, but yet they get $105 million. And I hate to keep beating on that dead horse, but I think it's very important that we all understand just how ridiculous that move is. They're legit taking food off the table of girls who were actually abused by Jeffrey Epstein. And for what purpose?

[Host 2]

What are they going to do?

[Host 1]

Help out the next scumbag that comes to the island and starts throwing money around? And yet, after Epstein's death, his estate transferred more than $12 million to southern country, according to court documents. On Tuesday, at a court hearing in the Virgin Islands on motions involving Epstein's estate, a magistrate, judge Carolyn Herman Purcell, questioned the estate's lawyers about the transfers to Southern country, saying the disclosure was not satisfactory. The judge said she did not know why Southern country would be receiving checks from the estate. There's no explanation for that. She said. Of course there is. You know what?

[Host 2]

It was money washing.

[Host 1]

We'll send it here, then we'll bounce it there, then it'll go everywhere. And even though the government might know what happened, they're not going to be

[Host 2]

able to prove it.

[Host 1]

And this is the cycle that Epstein was caught in for how long? The way he moved money should have raised so many red flags to so many people who should have been watching that. All of those people, in my opinion, are culpable. The sad part is most of them who were at the levers of power have moved on to other institutions, other entities, and they've never had to answer for the they were involved in when

[Host 2]

it comes to Jeffrey Epstein.

[Host 1]

Now we're starting to see a little bit of that change with the J.P. morgan lawsuit. But really, I've had my fill of financial settlements. I think it's time for some real justice and. And I think it's time that some of these scumbags ended up in bracelets. A lawyer for the estate responded that some of the payment was made in error. But the judge was not satisfied with the response and asked him to follow up with a fuller accounting. Now the real question should be from the judge. Why the hell did my colleagues even let this bank get set up in the first place? Who benefited? Follow the money. How many payments were made out when this bank popped up? How many people cashed big checks from Epstein? Well, we know a lot of people down in the Virgin Islands were eating from Epstein's palm. They were taking things from them, gifts and all sorts of other stuff. So how many of them had money sent to their accounts in the wake of this bank opening? Because we all know if you follow the money, eventually you're going to end up in some dirty ass politician's office. The checks listed in the estate's transactions for routine payments such as cable TV bills and phone service for Epstein's many properties stand out. The list of payments was filed with Herman Purcell, who is overseeing the $635 million estate, including the possible establishment of a compensation fund for his victims. Now, we know that that happened, and we know that the compensation fund paid out roughly $125 million to the survivors and $105 million to the U.S. virgin Islands. And you would think that would be enough and their greed would stop there, but it's not. They have to have their hand in the cookie jar a little longer and they have to try and get some more money here. Well, they're running into a buzzsaw. And that buzz saw is JP Morgan, because JP Morgan is not going to just write a check to the US Virgin Islands, which when they know that the US Virgin Islands was complicit and duplicitous when it comes to their relationship with Epstein. That Epstein was able to get a banking license in the first place is unusual. His 2008 conviction in Florida on a charge of soliciting prostitution from an underage girl required him to register as a sex offender. Most bank operators doing business in the United States are required to undergo rigorous background checks. And most banking institutions are subject to oversight by the arm of the treasury that investigates suspicious financial transactions. It's called the fincen division. Neither was required by the Virgin Islands when Epstein submitted the application in 2013. So who makes the rules down there in the U. S. Virgin Islands? Oh, that's right. The government of the U. S. Virgin Islands. And they were the ones who put these laws on the books to make it so that Epstein could set up this bank so that they could profit. And that's what the evidence shows us. The territory had passed its international banking entity law a year earlier in hopes of enticing investment from overseas. It modeled its law on that of Puerto Rico, where international banking entities have existed for three decades. Such organizations are attractive to offshore investors because the banks are able to offer more favorable tax treatment than the investors own countries can. In return, the territories expect local residents to manage the banks even though they cannot use its services. And under normal circumstances, if you're using these banks for the right purposes, there's no issue here. But we know Epstein wasn't. Everything this man touched, he corrupted. These specialized banks have drawn scrutiny because of their potential for abuse, including money laundering. The Federal Reserve bank of New York describes international bank entities in the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico as high risk institutions. Last year, it temporarily suspended applications for them to obtain financial services from the fed until it can issue stricter rules for them. And keep in mind, Epstein could have chosen to go anywhere in the world. He chose to go to the U. S. Virgin Islands and set up shop because the rules were favorable to him and the rules that weren't favorable to him, well, he had enough money to pay people off to get those rules changed. Epstein was carefully evasive in answering a question on the application that was meant to reveal information about an applicant's criminal record. His response mentioned his guilty plea to state charges in Florida, but played down other elements of of the case. Why was he allowed to play it down? Let's not let the Virgin Islands off here. Sure, he's gonna try and play it down, but it's up to the regulators and the people in the Virgin Islands who are in these positions of power to stop this man from doing his. And they did not. They failed. There's no other explanation for it. They failed. And in doing so they helped Epstein continue his criminal enterprise for decades for a relatively brief period in what has otherwise been a productive and accomplished life. The application said Epstein did face some legal difficulties relating to matters alleged to have taken place seven years ago. The application noted that a federal investigation had been discontinued and that's why it was so important for him to get rid of those federal charges back in the day. He had to be able to continue to operate on this level and he could smooth over the state charges. But if it was federal and we're talking about the man act or we're talking about human trafficking at the federal level, he would have been toast. And there's no way that he could have operated the way he did. So once again he was being enabled, and this time by the broken ass legal system here in the United States that people like Epstein continuously manipulate. But the answer was misleading, said Richard Scott Carnell, a former assistant secretary for financial institutions at the Treasury Department. The application did not reflect that Epstein's plea deal included an agreement with federal prosecutors who promised not to bring their own charges. The agreement acknowledged that federal authorities had compiled a long list of other possible underage victims. Think about that. They had all of these victims, a whole list of them, a mountain of evidence, and they were all children. And they decided not to prosecute him for anything but solicitation of a minor bank. Regulators expect applicants to be candid, said Carnell, now an associate professor at Fordham Law School. You'd never suspect there was a non prosecution agreement. As a bank regulator, I'd be outraged to learn that an applicant has misled me in that way.

[Host 2]

But they didn't care.

[Host 1]

They all knew what you thought that the regulators down in the U.S. virgin Islands weren't hip to what was going on. They were. They knew exactly what was up. They chose to do the Helen Keller

[Host 2]

and not see what was going on.

[Host 1]

In his application, Epstein listed as references James Staley, the chief executive of Barclays who had cultivated a relationship with Epstein was while at JPMorgan Chase. Another reference was Andrew Farkas, a New York real estate tycoon and co owner of a marina and office complex on St. Thomas with Epstein. Spokesman for both men said they had been Unaware they were listed as references along with JP Morgan and First Bank, a Puerto Rico based lender with branches in the Virgin Islands that long held

[Host 2]

some of Epstein's accounts.

[Host 1]

Now, going back and looking at this with hindsight, we all know that Jeff Staley is obviously lying here. He knew what was up and he was helping Epstein every step of the way as far as the financials go. And I called Jeff Staley a liar back then, and I'll continue to call him one now. Dude bullshitted everybody about his relationship with Epstein and now that shit's boomeranging back around to hit him directly in his head. The application was submitted by Erica Kellerhals, a longtime tax lawyer for Epstein in the Virgin Islands. She did not return requests for comment.

[Host 2]

Southern country had not commenced doing business

[Host 1]

as of April 2018, according to correspondence between Keller Hall's and the territory's banking department. Regulators said the bank was a self reporting company and did not require additional regulatory oversight if it was not operational. But court documents show Southern country was active for some of last year. If I was J.P. morgan, I'd be focusing on this right now. And also if I was the survivors, I'd be zeroing in on the US Virgin Islands. How dare they take money out of my pocket, Take food off my table. That's the way I'd look at it. Records filed by the Estate on Friday indicate the Southern country and had $693,157 in assets when Epstein died Aug. 10. Then in mid December, the estate transferred 15.5 million to Southern Country. In two checks. Southern country sent back 2.6 million, leaving the total it received at 12.9 million. The documents filed by the estate do not give a reason for the transfers. It is also not clear what Southern country did with that money. Two weeks later, the year end value of Southern country's assets was $499,759, according to the Estate's filings. So where'd that money go? I guess it just disappeared, right? I guess it's just unaccounted for and fell into a black hole. What really happened is it's in somebody's offshore account and nobody's the wiser for it. The Estate has told officials in the Virgin Islands that it does not intend to renew the bank's license again. Around the time the Territory granted Epstein his banking license, it also gave a lucrative tax break to Southern Trust, a company Epstein said was developing sophisticated algorithms to mine DNA and financial databases. Boy, that's reassuring, huh? This idiot Wants to mine DNA databases and compile records of people's DNA. Sounds like a fantastic plan. The tax break came from the territory's Economic Development Authority, which was approved by the territory's former governor, John de Jong Jr while his wife Cecile worked for Epstein, neither Cecile De Jong nor her husband returned messages seeking comment. Oh, of course they won't. They have nothing to say about this. They want to stay under the radar. But I think a big problem here is the fact that the USVI is greedy. That's just what it comes down to. And I think their greed is going to undo them when all is said and done. Because if you think JP Morgan is writing a check to the US Virgin Islands, I have some beachfront property to sell you in the middle of the Nevada desert. The tax break granted in 2013 was a boon for Epstein. Southern Trust generated about $300 million in profit in six years, and he paid an effective tax rate of about 3.9%. The source of Southern Trust's revenue is not clear. The the bare bones corporate filings made by the company in the Virgin Islands do not list any clients. That's because it was a money washing stop. That's exactly what it was. A place for them to wash up their money and get it sent back out into the financial system, colored up and ready to go. Although the Virgin Islands was long a place where Epstein got his way, it has lately cast itself as one of his victims. In a lawsuit last month that the Attorney General of the Virgin Islands, Denise George, said Epstein had sullied the territory's reputation with his conduct. What about your conduct, Denise George? What about your colleagues conduct? What about Stacy Plaskett? She sued Epstein's estate seeking to seize his private islands and dissolve what she said were shell companies acting as fronts for his sex trafficking enterprise. There's a lot of that, that's true, but. But also, let's not forget the money laundering aspect of this. A lot of people leave that out because it's not as salacious. But remember, that's how you get most of these criminals financial crimes. The suit seeks to intervene in the administration of Epstein's will to safeguard assets

[Host 2]

for dozens of his victims, claiming the

[Host 1]

co executors may have a conflict of interest because they were officers in many of Epstein's companies, including Southern country and Southern Trust. The co executors, Darren Endyke and Richard Kahn, did not return requests for comment. Well, they were part of the whole entire criminal conspiracy and the fact that they're skating free and Dry here is just unbelievable to me. Herman Purcell, the magistrate judge overseeing the administration of Epstein's will in the US Virgin Islands, heard arguments on the Attorney General's request. As at the hearing on Tuesday, the judge said she would issue a ruling at a later date. So we all know that it has progressed from here, but I wanted to go back and talk about this one more time because it's just another receipt to show you what I'm talking about when it comes to the US Virgin Islands and their negligence with Epstein and Jeffrey Epstein's disgusting crimes and the fact that they think they're going to get more money here is absurd to me. And I think it needs to be pointed out that they are not a victim and in fact, they're an enabler themselves. Alright, folks, that's gonna do it for this one. All of the information that goes with the episode can be found in the description box.

[Host 3]

What's up everyone? And welcome to another episode of the Epstein Chronicles.

[Host 1]

Yo, what a shocker.

[Host 3]

GOP lawmakers once again proving that when it comes to Jeffrey Epstein, transparency is apparently a four letter word. They had one simple job vote to subpoena the man's bank records. The one trail of evidence that isn't wrapped in spin, PR statements or conveniently redacted testimony. This is the kind of financial documentation that could have connected the dots shown

[Host 2]

who was paying, who was receiving, who

[Host 3]

was laundering, and who was propping up the biggest blackmail and trafficking operation of modern times. But instead of courage, what did they offer? A collective shrug and a resounding no. As if protecting Epstein shadowy network was just another day at the office. Now, they want you to believe that this was about principle, but it was really about self preservation. Because heaven forbid we follow the money and see whose fingerprints are all over it. And look, let's not miss the irony here. These are the same lawmakers who would happily subpoena your grandma's Venmo account if she bought a cup of coffee at a protest they didn't like. They'll issue subpoenas like candy when it comes to petty partisan vendettas, but suddenly, when Epstein's banking records are on the table, they're born again. Constitutionalists preaching about overreach and restraint. Save the bullshit. The hypocrisy isn't just glaring, it's practically blinding. They've spent years branding themselves as the champions of law and order, yet the second law and order dares creep towards the golden circle of elites. They sprint in the opposite direction, tripping over themselves to slam the vault shut. And what this vote really says, loud and clear, is that protecting the public doesn't matter. Protecting survivors doesn't matter. What matters is protecting the reputations of the well connected. The same donors who write the checks, the same businessmen they toast with that fundraisers, the same names that would have spilled out of those ledgers like gasoline on fire. And what we're seeing here is not a principled stand. It was a panic move, an exercise and damage control disguised as legislative prudence. By shooting down this subpoena, they didn't just block an investigation. They hope that they strangled it in. In the crib, ensuring that the trail of corruption stays cold and the guilty stay untouchable. And make no mistake, they're terrified. Because Epstein wasn't just some lone predator with a sick hobby and a private jet. He was a broker of influence, a financier of corruption. A human blackmail machine whose Rolodex was more powerful than any committee on the Hill. His bank records would tell a story no amount of press releases or. Or partisan gaslighting could erase. Who funded him, who he funded, and how deep that rot really went. That's the nightmare these lawmakers can't face. Not because the truth isn't obvious. It is. But because putting it on paper would force them to admit their own complicity, their own cowardice, and the uncomfortable reality that Epstein's operation wasn't an aberration, but a feature of the very system they

[Host 1]

now pretend to to safeguard.

[Host 3]

So let's drop the charade. This wasn't about due process. It wasn't about overreach. It certainly wasn't about protecting the integrity of the government. It was about shielding the guilty, burying the evidence, and hoping the public forgets. It was about power protecting power, as it always does.

[Host 2]

And in the end, the GOP didn't

[Host 3]

just vote against the subpoena. They voted against accountability, against justice, and against the people they're supposed to represent. They chose cowardice dressed up as principle obstruction wrapped in procedure. And in doing so, they've once again reminded us that when the powerful are implicated, the system bends over backwards. Not to break them, but to protect them. Today's article is from the USA Today, and the headline, GOP Shuts Down House Democrats Effort to Subpoena Banks Handling Jeffrey Epstein Money. This article was authored by Josh Mayer. House Republicans rejected an effort to subpoena four banks that reportedly flagged about $1.5 billion in suspicious financial transactions linked to disgraced financier and alleged sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein. Uh, alleged, say what now? Representative Jamie Raskin of Maryland, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, made a motion during the group's first oversight hearing pressing FBI Director Cash Patel since he took over the bureau in February. Look, I don't know why anybody would be against this. The financial sector. If you want to look for the boogeyman, that's where you're going to find it. Those are the people that are screwing us on a daily basis. Those are the people that we should all be mad at. And once again, they slide away without any kind of ramifications. $1.5 billion in. In suspicious transactions, and they want you to report $600 if you use a mobile app.

[Host 1]

Yo, real talk.

[Host 3]

How can anybody support these people? And as somebody on the outside looking in, meaning I don't claim one political party or the other. I find it wild that anyone is still believing the. That these people are pumping. And it goes for both sides, by the way. I'm not just talking about the GOP here. Well, they're the target of this conversation, obviously, but. But overall, let's not act like the Democrats gave one single about what was going on. And I have an episode coming up where we're going to discuss that a bit further, because they're carrying on like there's some kind of heroes here when they could have stepped up multiple times. Look, Cash Patel's not wrong about that when he says that the Democrats could have done something about this years ago. They could have. They chose not to. So if we're going to look at this, we have to look at it as the systemic problem that it is, not just to try and score, you know, political points, because if you do that, we're not going to get anywhere. So we need honest brokers here. And unfortunately, we don't have many of them. Besides a handful of people like Ro Khanna and Thomas Massie and a handful of others that, shockingly, even includes Marjorie Taylor Greene. The rest of these people should be embarrassed. Representative Jamie Raskin of Maryland, the top Democrat of the House Judiciary Committee, made a motion during the group's first oversight hearing pressing FBI Director Cash Patel. Since he took over the bureau In February, these four banks have flagged to the government 1.5 billion in suspicious transactions related to the sex trafficking crimes and conspiracy of Epstein, his associate Ghislaine Maxwell, and all of their collaborators. Raskin said Sept. 17. Now, why would anyone block this? Honestly, how can you look your constituents in the eye and say, you know what? We didn't want to subpoena the banks the same people that have screwed everybody from the start of time. And this is why we never get anywhere. This is why we continue to spin our wheels in neutral. Because the people that can make a change, the people that can do something different, they never do. And that's because both sides are bought and paid for. I hope everybody's waking up to that and I hope everybody knows that they're not going to let this crisis when it comes to Charlie Kirk, go to waste. They're going to use this great tragedy to find a way to screw us. Make no mistake about it. And we already heard Pam Bondi out here talking about hate speech and the rest of it. I mean, you want to talk about anti American principle, you want to talk about unconstitutional, everything that lady was saying when it comes to so called hate speech was unconstitutional. Now look, people should be able to say whatever they want. Now, does that mean they should be protected from the ramifications of what they say? No, but they should have the ability to say it without the government threatening them. What kind of horseshit is that?

[Host 1]

I mean, let's be real.

[Host 3]

They're more concerned about what somebody might say online than they are about the banks laundering money for Jeffrey Epstein and to the tune of over a billion dollars. Tell me your priorities aren't up without telling me your priorities aren't up. The Maryland lawmakers said he wanted the banks and their CEOs to turn over everything they had in their connection with helping move money to or from Epstein, who died by suicide in 2019 as he was awaiting trial on federal sex trafficking charges. So what Congress should do here is they should just do an end around the DOJ and the banks and they should contact the USVI government and get the documentation from them. They had a big ass lawsuit with JP Morgan and go from there. And the sdny. They have a bunch of information. They had several different lawsuits going on when it comes to JP Morgan, Deutsche bank and others like the bank of New York, Mellon, Chase bank, several different banks that were doing business with this man. So they have the desire to tell you what you can and can't say, but they don't have the desire to chase down the connections of the people who enabled Jeffrey Epstein and made his whole entire criminal empire possible. Are you paying attention yet? Specifically, Raskin pushed to subpoena JPMorgan Chase, bank of America, Deutsche bank and bank of New York Mellon and their CEOs. Republican lawmakers have largely joined Democrats in saying they want answers to the growing questions around Epstein, including whether others participated in his alleged sex trafficking ring using young women and underage girls. But when it came time to vote on Raskin's motion, committee chair Jim Jim Schwartz Jordan of Ohio quickly approved a Republican move to table it or shoot it down before lawmakers could discuss it. Well, isn't that shocking? Mr. Jim Jordan, have you seen the story about the Ohio State wrestling team and the abuse that they suffered? I don't think Jim Jordan has any place sitting on this committee about this topic. It's as gross as George Mitchell being part of the Catholic negotiation when it comes to the priests who are molesting people. I mean, you can't even make this up and it's almost like they throw it directly in your face, right? Yeah. Look, I'm accused of doing this with Jeffrey Epstein. I'm accused of assaulting Virginia. But let me go over here and be part of this whole negotiation with the Catholic Church. And the fun that got set up is nobody paying attention to what's really going on and just how fucking deep this all runs. Jim Jordan, give me a break with this guy. The committee did not stop to debate the motion, so the GOP lawmakers who voted to table the effort didn't immediately explain the reasoning behind their votes. USA Today has reached out to GOP House Judiciary Committee state staff for comment. Oh, I'm sure they'll have a comment for you. I'm sure they'll have all kinds of stupid ass comments for you. None that shine any light on what's going on, but I'm sure they'll have some comments. A recent New York Times investigation cited by Raskin and other Democrats alleged JP Morgan Chase spent years supporting and profiting from the notorious sex offender, ignoring red flags, suspicious activity, and concerned executives. Well, we've been talking about this for years now, and now the legacy media is finally catching up.

[Host 2]

But if you want to go after

[Host 3]

somebody, this is not rocket science. Follow the money. That's how you nail these people. I don't know how many times I

[Host 2]

got to say it.

[Host 3]

That's how they got Al Capone. That's how they get Mafia figures all the time. That's how they get people all the time. Follow the money, whether it's taxes, undeclared

[Host 1]

dough, whatever it might be.

[Host 3]

When you're dealing with people like this, nothing is on the up and up. And we all know that Jeffrey Epstein was involved in all kinds of money laundering, all kinds of crazy. And that's exactly why they don't want to look at these documents. They're scared. Where they're going to lead, and I've said this for months now, I think that's what Donald Trump fears. I think that it's going to lead to his supporters, it's going to lead to his, his donors, and it's going to lead to some of the most powerful people in the world of finance. And if you think that the people who actually fund the whole entire thing that we see here with the government, with everything are going to let themselves be exposed, you are absolutely insane. While Republicans were moving to block Raskin's motion, the Maryland Democrat noted that JP Morgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon said his bank would comply with any subpoena to hand over Epstein related records. Well, yeah, what else is he going to do? Going to fight it? Good luck with that. We regret any association with that man at all. And of course if it's a legal requirement, we're going to conform to it, dimon told a reporter after leaving the Senate GOP lunch on September 17th. Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, also has been pushing for access to Epstein's related bank records for months. Wyden has said one of the Treasury Department's documents reviewed by Democratic and Republican staff of the Senate Finance Committee indicated that between 2003 and 2019 there were more than 4,725 wire transfers totaling 1.8 billion involving Epstein and his associates. Yo, chew on that for a minute and ask yourself how was this never

[Host 1]

rico did he got hit with rico?

[Host 3]

R. Kelly, everybody gets RICO nowadays. Not Jeffrey Epstein, not Ghislaine Maxwell. Ask yourself why? And it's not because they're in the Mossad, okay? At the five hour hearing on September 17, Raskin and other Democrats excoriated Patel for publicly calling for the release of all Epstein documents before he was FBI director and then refusing to release them now that he's in charge. The director has said he's blocked by court orders. Put your big boy pants on and let us know who the pedophiles are, raskin said during the marathon five hour hearing. Look, it's not the wrong way to go, honestly, and I think that the question is sound.

[Host 1]

Why are you protecting the people who

[Host 3]

are helping Epstein's engine move? Why are you protecting people that were obviously involved in some way or the other? What's the motivation here? And I think that's what's really frustrating a lot of people that are maga and I think the more that they double down and they keep digging this cover up hole that they find themselves in deeper. They're going to keep losing more support because as more evidence comes out, it's more obvious than ever that there's a cover up underway. And of course, the million dollar question is, who are you protecting and why? All of the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box.