Looking the Other Way: Senate Report on Wall Street Banks and Jeffrey Epstein
Snapshot
| Field | Details |
|---|---|
| Report | Looking the Other Way: How Wall Street Banks Enabled Jeffrey Epstein’s Sex Trafficking |
| Author | Senator Ron Wyden, Ranking Member of the Senate Finance Committee |
| Publication date | August 4, 2026 |
| Investigation began | 2022 |
| Institutions examined | JPMorgan Chase, Deutsche Bank, Bank of America, the Treasury Department, and federal banking regulators |
| Central finding | Senate investigators reported evidence of extensive compliance failures involving accounts and transactions connected to Jeffrey Epstein |
| Transactions examined | More than $1 billion in JPMorgan wire transfers, more than $250 million flagged by Deutsche Bank, and $169.8 million sent from Leon Black related accounts |
| Legal status | The report presents Senate staff findings and recommendations. It is not a court judgment and does not itself establish criminal liability |
| Primary document | Read the complete Senate Finance Committee report |
Overview
Looking the Other Way is a 67 page investigative report issued by Senator Ron Wyden, the ranking member of the United States Senate Committee on Finance.
The report examines how major financial institutions handled accounts, cash withdrawals, wire transfers, and other financial activity connected to Jeffrey Epstein. It focuses principally on JPMorgan Chase, Deutsche Bank, and Bank of America.
Senate investigators concluded that the banks failed to identify or promptly report thousands of transactions that displayed indicators of suspicious activity. The report alleges that senior bankers sometimes protected lucrative client relationships even after internal compliance personnel raised concerns about Epstein’s criminal history, cash withdrawals, payments to women, and connections to other wealthy clients.
These conclusions are investigative findings. They should not be confused with criminal convictions, regulatory judgments, or findings reached after a trial. The banks dispute important parts of the report.
How the Investigation Was Conducted
Senator Wyden’s staff began investigating Epstein related financial activity in 2022. The inquiry initially focused on the approximately $158 million that financier Leon Black reportedly paid Epstein for tax and estate planning work.
On February 14, 2024, bipartisan Senate Finance Committee staff reviewed suspicious activity reports at a Treasury Department reading room. Investigators subsequently examined:
- Suspicious activity reports filed by financial institutions.
- Bank records unsealed in litigation brought by survivors and the United States Virgin Islands.
- Internal communications among bankers, executives, and compliance personnel.
- Customer due diligence records.
- Financial records released under the Epstein Files Transparency Act.
- Tax, trust, estate planning, and corporate records.
- Expert financial analysis filed in federal court.
The report applies federal anti money laundering requirements to this record. Under the Bank Secrecy Act, a financial institution must monitor customer activity and report transactions that it knows, suspects, or has reason to suspect lack an apparent lawful purpose.
A suspicious activity report does not establish that a crime occurred. It alerts the government to activity requiring possible investigation.
The Report’s Principal Findings
| Finding | Senate investigators’ conclusion |
|---|---|
| Bank of America | The bank may have failed to scrutinize and promptly report approximately $170 million in payments from Leon Black related accounts to Epstein controlled entities |
| Leon Black payments | The report characterizes Black as Epstein’s largest identified source of funding during the period examined |
| JPMorgan reporting | JPMorgan allegedly reported only a small portion of Epstein’s suspicious activity while he remained a client |
| JPMorgan leadership | Senior personnel allegedly retained Epstein despite repeated warnings from compliance employees |
| Post exit dealings | Some JPMorgan bankers allegedly continued working with Epstein after the bank formally ended his client relationship |
| Cash withdrawal advice | The report alleges that senior bankers advised Epstein about withdrawing cash through business accounts |
| Knowledge of young women | Internal correspondence allegedly indicates that senior bankers knew young women or girls were frequently present at Epstein’s properties |
| Deutsche Bank | The bank allegedly failed to respond adequately to cash withdrawals, payments to women, settlements, and other warning signs |
| Business purpose | The three banks allegedly failed to obtain adequate records supporting the stated purposes of significant transactions |
| Individual bankers | The report recommends investigation of bankers involved in handling Epstein and Black related accounts |
| Epstein employees | The report recommends investigation of Darren Indyke, Richard Kahn, Harry Beller, and other people who moved money for Epstein |
The report’s recommendations for investigation do not establish that any named individual committed a crime.
Financial Activity Identified in the Report
| Institution or relationship | Activity described |
|---|---|
| JPMorgan Chase | 134 accounts associated with Epstein, his entities, or related people |
| JPMorgan Chase | More than 5,000 wire transfers totaling approximately $1.1 billion |
| JPMorgan Chase | More than $7 million in cash withdrawals from 2002 through 2013 |
| JPMorgan Chase | More than $3 million in direct payments to women |
| Ghislaine Maxwell | At least $31 million received from Epstein, including approximately $25 million from JPMorgan accounts |
| MC2 Model Management | A reported $1 million payment or financial arrangement involving Epstein |
| Bank of America | Eighteen wires totaling $169.8 million from Leon Black related accounts |
| Deutsche Bank | More than $250 million in transfers retroactively identified as suspicious |
| Deutsche Bank | One suspicious activity report covering 1,140 wires totaling approximately $147 million |
| Settlements and penalties | The report calculates approximately $913 million paid by banks, the Epstein estate, and Leon Black |
Bank of America and the Leon Black Payments
Between 2012 and 2017, accounts at Bank of America associated with Leon Black, members of his family, and related entities sent $169.8 million to Epstein controlled entities.
| Year | Amount |
|---|---|
| 2012 | $5.5 million |
| 2013 | $50 million |
| 2014 | $70 million |
| 2015 | $30 million |
| 2016 | $6.3 million |
| 2017 | $8 million |
| Total | $169.8 million |
The transfers were directed to Financial Trust Company accounts at JPMorgan and Southern Trust Company accounts at Deutsche Bank.
Bank of America did not file its principal suspicious activity report concerning the payments until February 7, 2020. According to the Senate report, the filing described the activity as lacking a verifiable business purpose. A second report filed in October 2020 addressed two transfers omitted from the earlier filing.
Senate investigators argued that the size of the payments, Epstein’s criminal record, and his lack of conventional tax or estate planning credentials should have prompted enhanced scrutiny years earlier.
Records cited by the report identify Jane Heller and Karen Weiss as Bank of America personnel connected to Black’s banking relationships. Selected supporting documents include:
| Document | Relevance |
|---|---|
| EFTA00989951 | Communication concerning a statement requested by Jane Heller |
| EFTA01448363 | Reference to Bank of America’s relationship with Black and an art secured credit line |
| EFTA00605904 | Records involving financing associated with Black’s assets |
| EFTA01132605 | Communication involving yacht financing and Jane Heller |
Bank of America told Reuters that it takes its legal and regulatory obligations seriously and that it did not facilitate wrongdoing.
Leon Black and Southern Trust Company
Epstein established Southern Trust Company in the United States Virgin Islands in 2012. According to the report, Southern Trust generated approximately $184 million in revenue between 2013 and 2017.
Senate investigators calculated that approximately $166 million, or about 90 percent of that revenue, came from Black. A previous independent review commissioned by Apollo Global Management calculated approximately $158 million, or roughly 85 percent.
The difference appears to reflect the records and methodology used in each review.
A 2023 settlement between Black and the United States Virgin Islands states that Epstein used money paid by Black to partially fund his operations in the Virgin Islands. Black agreed to pay $62.5 million to resolve potential claims. The settlement was not an admission that Black participated in Epstein’s sexual crimes.
The Senate report goes further by characterizing Black as Epstein’s single largest identified source of funding. That is the report’s conclusion, not a criminal adjudication against Black.
JPMorgan’s 134 Accounts
Epstein and people or entities connected to him maintained 134 JPMorgan accounts between 1998 and 2013.
| Account category | Number |
|---|---|
| Accounts in Epstein’s name | 6 |
| Corporate, trust, and entity accounts | 59 |
| Accounts associated with other people | 69 |
| Total | 134 |
The associated account holders included Ghislaine Maxwell, Darren Indyke, Richard Kahn, Harry Beller, and Nadia Marcinkova.
The report states that more than 5,000 wire transfers, totaling approximately $1.1 billion, moved through the network. It also identifies more than $7 million in cash withdrawals and more than $3 million in payments to women.
JPMorgan’s reporting history is central to the Senate investigation:
| Filing date | Activity reported |
|---|---|
| August 13, 2019 | 469 transfers totaling approximately $201 million |
| September 26, 2019 | 4,725 transfers totaling approximately $1.082 billion |
Both reports were filed after Epstein’s July 2019 arrest and years after JPMorgan ended its direct relationship with him.
The Senate report says JPMorgan filed seven earlier reports between 2002 and 2016 covering approximately $4.3 million. Investigators contend that this represented only a small fraction of the activity later identified.
JPMorgan disputes that characterization. The bank says it began flagging transactions in 2002, continued reporting during the relationship, and submitted additional reports after the accounts closed.
Cash Withdrawals and Payments to Women
A forensic analysis prepared in litigation brought by the United States Virgin Islands calculated that Epstein withdrew more than $7 million in cash from JPMorgan accounts between 2002 and 2013.
That averaged approximately $650,000 annually.
The same analysis identified more than $3 million in payments to dozens of women. Their names were generally redacted. Some payments went to recipients in Belarus, Lithuania, Russia, and other foreign jurisdictions.
The report treats these transactions as significant because Epstein had a documented history of using cash to pay girls and young women. It argues that the volume and pattern should have triggered enhanced investigation by the bank.
The underlying expert analysis is available in the Amador report filed in United States Virgin Islands v. JPMorgan Chase.
Payments to Ghislaine Maxwell and MC2 Model Management
The report cites federal court testimony that Epstein paid Maxwell at least $31 million, including approximately $25 million from JPMorgan accounts.
Reported transfers included:
| Year | Amount |
|---|---|
| 1999 | $18.3 million |
| 2002 | $5 million |
| 2007 | $7.4 million |
The 2007 transfer was subsequently used toward the purchase of a Sikorsky helicopter through Air Ghislaine.
The report also discusses a $1 million financial arrangement involving MC2 Model Management, an agency founded by Jean Luc Brunel. A JPMorgan security report questioned whether the money represented a concealed investment or payment for services.
JPMorgan also reportedly issued a standby letter of credit supporting financing for MC2. The Senate report recommends further investigation into whether the bank adequately examined the arrangement.
JPMorgan Executives and Internal Warnings
The report alleges that internal compliance personnel repeatedly attempted to limit or terminate Epstein’s relationship with JPMorgan.
It states that William Langford, Maryanne Williamson, and other compliance employees escalated concerns about Epstein’s criminal history, cash withdrawals, payments to women, and reputational risk. Senior private banking executives nevertheless continued the relationship until 2013.
The report discusses conduct or communications involving:
| Person | Role described in the report |
|---|---|
| Mary Erdoes | Senior JPMorgan private banking executive who received escalations involving Epstein |
| Jes Staley | Senior executive and relationship manager who maintained extensive contact with Epstein |
| John Duffy | Private banking executive involved in account and cash withdrawal discussions |
| Paul Morris | Banker who handled Epstein at JPMorgan and later introduced him to Deutsche Bank |
| Mary Casey | Private banking employee connected to Epstein’s accounts |
| David Brigstocke | Executive whose correspondence referenced young women at Epstein’s home |
| Stephen Cutler | Senior legal and compliance executive |
| Justin Nelson | Banker who continued meeting Epstein after his direct banking relationship ended |
| Paul Barrett | Banker involved in matters concerning Leon Black |
| Jeff Matusow | JPMorgan employee identified in the report’s recommendation for investigation |
A 2012 email from Brigstocke to Erdoes referred to Epstein’s residence and used the term “nymphettes.” Erdoes replied, “Wow.” The report interprets the exchange as evidence that senior personnel knew about the presence of young women at Epstein’s home.
The report also examines more than 1,200 emails exchanged between Epstein and Staley from 2008 through 2012. Selected records include:
| Document | Relevance |
|---|---|
| EFTA00894079 | Staley correspondence using the phrase “Snow White” |
| EFTA00746255 | Related correspondence concerning a costume |
| EFTA01300356 | Staley correspondence discussing danger |
The interpretation of coded or ambiguous messages remains disputed. The report presents them as part of a broader evidentiary pattern rather than as independently conclusive proof.
JPMorgan’s Dealings After Epstein’s Exit
JPMorgan formally ended Epstein’s direct client relationship in 2013. According to the report, some bankers continued to meet him or work with him through relationships involving other wealthy clients.
An August 2013 exchange cited by investigators concerned whether the bank could continue working with Epstein through client accounts even though direct Epstein entities were no longer acceptable.
The report alleges that Justin Nelson met Epstein at his Manhattan residence at least six times between 2014 and 2018 and also visited Epstein’s New Mexico property. It connects some of these contacts to business involving Leon Black.
Relevant records include:
| Document | Relevance |
|---|---|
| EFTA00370319 | Scheduling communication involving Nelson and Leon Black |
| EFTA00679926 | Communication concerning a credit facility for Black |
| EFTA00633809 | Communication involving Paul Barrett and Black |
| EFTA02387413 | Additional Barrett and Black related material |
| EFTA01922351 | Epstein’s statement concerning Barrett’s responsiveness |
JPMorgan has said that, apart from Staley, its executives acted with integrity and did not knowingly assist Epstein’s crimes.
Deutsche Bank
After leaving JPMorgan, Epstein became a Deutsche Bank client in 2013. The relationship continued until 2018, with account activity extending into 2019.
Paul Morris, who had handled Epstein at JPMorgan, introduced him to Deutsche Bank. An April 2013 presentation estimated that Epstein could generate between $100 million and $300 million in asset flows and between $2 million and $4 million in annual revenue.
Internal records celebrated the new relationship and portrayed Epstein as a successful entrepreneur. Selected documents include:
| Document | Relevance |
|---|---|
| EFTA01344411 | Paul Morris and Chip Packard correspondence celebrating the relationship |
| EFTA01344990 | Deutsche Bank presentation describing Epstein as a client success |
| EFTA01344574 | Description of Morris’s relationship with Epstein |
| EFTA01460765 | Client ranking information |
| EFTA01352796 | Correspondence involving Stewart Oldfield and compliance issues |
Following Epstein’s arrest, Deutsche Bank retroactively identified more than $250 million in suspicious transfers. One 2019 filing covered 1,140 wires totaling approximately $147 million.
The activity examined by the report included:
- More than $800,000 in cash withdrawals over approximately four years.
- More than $7 million in settlement payments through law firms.
- More than 120 wires totaling $2.65 million to trust beneficiaries.
- Payments for rent, tuition, hotels, and other expenses involving women with Eastern European surnames.
- Questions from Darren Indyke about how frequently cash could be withdrawn without triggering an alert.
In 2020, the New York State Department of Financial Services imposed a $150 million penalty on Deutsche Bank for compliance failures involving Epstein and other clients. The findings are detailed in the department’s consent order.
Deutsche Bank has said that it regrets its historical relationship with Epstein, cooperated with authorities, and took steps to address the identified deficiencies.
Darren Indyke, Richard Kahn, and Harry Beller
The report devotes a separate section to people who worked for Epstein and possessed authority over his accounts.
Darren Indyke was Epstein’s attorney and held signing authority over numerous accounts. The report states that he completed 97 cash withdrawals of approximately $7,500 each while Epstein banked at Deutsche Bank. Internal correspondence reportedly records Indyke asking how often cash could be withdrawn without generating an alert.
Richard Kahn served as Epstein’s accountant and financial manager. Kahn and Indyke later became executors of Epstein’s estate and beneficiaries of the 1953 Trust.
Harry Beller also possessed account authority. The report states that he cashed approximately 20 checks totaling $800,000 between 2007 and 2008. Another review identified approximately $920,000 in cash withdrawals during a later period.
The report characterizes the three men as Epstein accomplices and calls for federal investigation. That language reflects the report’s allegations. It is not a statement that the three were convicted of participating in Epstein’s trafficking crimes.
Settlements and Regulatory Penalties
The report calculates that financial institutions, Epstein’s estate, and Leon Black paid approximately $913 million in settlements and penalties connected to Epstein related claims.
| Party | Amount | Description |
|---|---|---|
| JPMorgan Chase | $290 million | Settlement with survivors |
| JPMorgan Chase | $75 million | Settlement with the United States Virgin Islands |
| Bank of America | $72.5 million | Settlement with survivors |
| Deutsche Bank | $75 million | Settlement with survivors |
| Deutsche Bank | $150 million | New York regulatory penalty involving Epstein and other compliance failures |
| Leon Black | $62.5 million | Settlement with the United States Virgin Islands |
| Epstein estate | $105 million | Settlement with the United States Virgin Islands |
| Epstein estate | $48 million | Payments associated with survivor claims |
| Epstein estate | $35 million | Additional survivor related settlement payments |
| Total | $913 million | Reported aggregate |
The report notes that the actual total may be higher because some private settlements remain confidential.
Settlements frequently resolve disputed claims without admissions of liability. They should not automatically be treated as findings that every allegation was proven.
Institutional Responses and Disputed Claims
The institutions named in the report contest important parts of its analysis.
JPMorgan called the report’s central characterization false. The bank said it had reported suspicious activity beginning in 2002 and continued filing reports during and after its relationship with Epstein. JPMorgan has also maintained that Epstein concealed his crimes and that the bank regrets having served him.
Bank of America said it takes its legal and regulatory responsibilities seriously and did not facilitate wrongdoing.
Deutsche Bank said it regrets its historical relationship with Epstein, cooperated with regulators and law enforcement, and addressed the compliance failures previously identified.
Reuters reported that it could not independently verify every detail in the Senate report.
These responses are essential when evaluating the report. The existence of delayed or retroactive filings does not by itself establish that a particular banker knowingly assisted trafficking.
Treasury Department Dispute and the PETRA Act
The report criticizes the Treasury Department for failing to provide Senator Wyden with requested Epstein related suspicious activity reports and supporting records.
Wyden sought the records in letters dated March 11, June 16, and September 2, 2025. The report states that Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent declined to provide them to the Senate Finance Committee while records were later supplied to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
Wyden introduced the Produce Epstein Treasury Records Act, known as the PETRA Act, on September 9, 2025.
The legislation would require Treasury to provide Congress with:
- Relevant suspicious activity reports.
- Lists of financial institutions and people connected to reported transactions.
- The value of the activity described in those reports.
- Information about resulting enforcement actions.
The report states that Senator Mike Crapo objected when Wyden sought unanimous consent for the measure on March 3, 2026.
A Treasury representative told Reuters that the department does not comment on investigations and has cooperated with valid congressional requests.
The Unaired 60 Minutes Interview
Wyden recorded an interview with 60 Minutes correspondent Sharyn Alfonsi on March 26, 2026. The planned segment reportedly examined Wall Street banks and the United States Virgin Islands government in connection with Epstein.
Alfonsi was subsequently dismissed from CBS. The report describes the interview as being suppressed and states that it remained unclear whether the broader segment would air.
CBS denied censoring the investigation and said Alfonsi’s dismissal was unrelated. The network also pointed to its continuing coverage of Epstein.
The Senate report’s use of the word “suppressed” therefore represents Wyden’s characterization of the episode, not an established finding about CBS’s motive.
Proposed Anti Money Laundering Reforms
The report proposes legislation directed at accounts held by people with extremely high net worth. Community banks would be exempt.
The proposed reforms include:
- Annual certification by a senior manager that qualifying accounts have been properly reviewed for compliance with federal anti money laundering laws.
- Stronger personal penalties for bankers who deliberately disregard trafficking related warning signs.
- Possible compensation clawbacks when serious compliance failures occur.
- Mandatory reports when a bank terminates a high risk client relationship.
- Disclosure of the institution receiving the former client’s assets.
- Mandatory suspicious activity reports when a bank restricts a client’s access to cash withdrawals or wire transfers.
- Enhanced review of accounts established for unrelated people under age 25, particularly foreign nationals.
- Professional licensing consequences for attorneys and accountants who knowingly enable trafficking.
Recommended Federal Action
The report calls for several government investigations:
- Treasury, the Federal Reserve, and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency should investigate the conduct of JPMorgan, Deutsche Bank, and Bank of America.
- The Department of Justice should determine whether banks or individual bankers violated federal criminal law.
- The Department of Justice should investigate Darren Indyke, Richard Kahn, Harry Beller, and other Epstein associates who controlled or moved his money.
- The House Oversight Committee should obtain communications from the bankers identified in the report.
- The Treasury Department should provide the Senate Finance Committee with all requested Epstein related suspicious activity reports.
These are recommendations for future action. The report does not announce that prosecutors or regulators have adopted its conclusions.
Evidentiary Status and Limitations
The report combines primary bank records, suspicious activity reports, court filings, internal emails, expert analysis, settlements, media reporting, and Senate staff interpretation.
Several limitations are important:
- A suspicious activity report records suspicion, not proof of criminal conduct.
- Many underlying records remain confidential, redacted, or unavailable to the public.
- Senate investigators did not obtain voluntary cooperation from every institution named.
- Some conclusions depend on interpreting ambiguous internal correspondence.
- The report was issued by the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, not by the committee through a bipartisan vote.
- No court has adopted every allegation or conclusion contained in the report.
- Settlements generally do not constitute admissions of liability.
- Being named in the report does not establish that a person knowingly participated in Epstein’s crimes.
The report is nevertheless significant because it assembles financial evidence from multiple institutions into a single chronology and identifies specific questions for prosecutors, regulators, and Congress.
Questions Requiring Further Investigation
- When did each financial institution first identify Epstein’s transactions as suspicious?
- Why were thousands of transactions reported only after Epstein’s 2019 arrest?
- Which senior executives approved retaining Epstein after compliance personnel recommended ending the relationship?
- Did any banker knowingly help Epstein structure cash withdrawals to reduce regulatory scrutiny?
- What documentation supported the $169.8 million in payments from Black related accounts?
- Did banks verify the stated purposes of payments to women, trusts, law firms, and foreign recipients?
- What information was available to government agencies before 2019?
- Did law enforcement receive earlier reports that could have supported intervention?
- Why did JPMorgan personnel continue meeting Epstein after the bank terminated his direct relationship?
- Should individual bankers face professional or financial consequences for serious anti money laundering failures?
- What additional Epstein related suspicious activity reports remain unavailable to Congress and the public?
- Will federal regulators or the Department of Justice open investigations based on the report?
Sources
- Senator Ron Wyden, Looking the Other Way: How Wall Street Banks Enabled Jeffrey Epstein’s Sex Trafficking
- Reuters, Wyden urges regulators to investigate Wall Street banks over Epstein accounts
- New York State Department of Financial Services consent order concerning Deutsche Bank
- Amador forensic accounting report in United States Virgin Islands v. JPMorgan Chase
- United States Virgin Islands settlement agreement with Leon Black
- Produce Epstein Treasury Records Act, Senate Bill 2746
- People, report on the unaired 60 Minutes investigation