Epstein Files · Historical court records · 2023–2024
JPMorgan’s $75 million agreement with the U.S. Virgin Islands resolved a civil lawsuit about the bank’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. The agreement was announced in September 2023. The territory’s federal case closed in October. The difference is easy to lose in a headline and easy to recover if you read the actual dismissal order alongside the bank’s announcement.
The territory alleged that the bank helped facilitate Epstein’s trafficking activity. That allegation is part of the case history. The settlement ended the suit without a trial verdict determining liability. JPMorgan’s September 26 announcement said the agreement did not include an admission of liability and expressed regret for its association with Epstein.
Why the case needed a judge’s signature
On September 29, 2023, the territory filed a stipulation to dismiss its claims. JPMorgan made similar filings on October 6 to dismiss claims it had brought against James Staley in the territory’s case and a separate case. The problem was procedural: the stipulations did not carry the signatures of all parties who had appeared in the respective suits.
In his October 18 order, U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff treated the filings as requests for court-approved dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). He reviewed the underlying settlements privately, granted the dismissals and directed the clerk to close the territory’s case, No. 22-cv-10904. The judge expressly left the other case open at that stage. A dismissal order can tell you who is still in the litigation and which file closed. It does not make the allegations in either case findings of fact.
What the figures refer to
JPMorgan described $55 million for initiatives that included assistance to victims and local charities, with $20 million for attorney fees. That is the bank’s stated allocation under the agreement, not an accounting of completed payments or a tally of individual awards. The court’s June 28, 2024 memorandum order confirms the $75 million settlement and the October closure.
That later order also distinguishes the $75 million from the $290 million settlement in the separate class case brought by victims. The parties and legal claims differ. A bank announcement covering both proceedings, a court order closing one, and an order addressing records after closure each answer different questions. The Associated Press’s contemporaneous report provides an independent account of the territory’s settlement announcement.
Where to start in the records
Look at the docket number on the first page before reading a headline or a search result. In this example, the territory’s docket gives you the civil dismissal; a later records dispute in that docket does not mean the underlying claims returned to trial. Compare this path with the New York regulator’s Deutsche Bank consent order, a different accountability mechanism. Our Epstein Files document index links to additional original records.
Photo credit: File photograph: Daniel Patrick Moynihan U.S. Courthouse in Manhattan, September 15, 2009, representing the Southern District of New York. Photo: Americasroof, CC BY-SA 3.0. Source photograph · License. Resized for display; the resized photograph remains under the linked license.
Editorial note: This article draws on the linked sources and may include clearly labeled opinion or unconfirmed reports. We have not independently verified every source claim. Publication does not establish an unconfirmed claim as fact; developing details may change.