Featured

Senate Report Exposes How JPMorgan Chase, Deutsche Bank & Bank of America Enabled Jeffrey Epstein’s 1.4 Billion Empire

“LOOKING THE OTHER WAY”: Senate Report Exposes How JPMorgan Chase, Deutsche Bank & Bank of America Enabled Jeffrey Epstein’s 1.4 Billion Empire

INTELLIGENCE BRIEFING โ€” AUGUST 9, 2026



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A bombshell 67-page report released by Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) on August 4, 2026, reveals that three of the world’s largest banks โ€” JPMorgan Chase, Deutsche Bank, and Bank of America โ€” systematically violated federal anti-money laundering laws to protect convicted sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein. The report, titled “Looking the Other Way,” caps a four-year investigation and names 13 senior bankers who allegedly shielded Epstein from federal scrutiny, allowing him to move over 1.4 billion in suspicious transactions over nearly two decades.

The investigation found that the banks failed to file timely Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs), actively coached Epstein on how to conceal cash withdrawals through shell companies, and continued working with him informally even after terminating him as a client โ€” all while knowing of the “pervasive presence of young women or underage girls at Epstein’s homes.”



I. THE INVESTIGATION

Senator Wyden’s investigation began in 2022 after an Apollo Global Management board report revealed that billionaire Leon Black had paid Epstein 158 million over five years for purported tax and estate planning advice โ€” a figure that dwarfed typical compensation for such services.

Over four years, Wyden’s staff:
– Reviewed thousands of Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) filed with the U.S. Treasury Department
– Conducted an in-camera review of Treasury’s Epstein files on February 14, 2024
– Analyzed unsealed court records from lawsuits filed by Epstein’s victims and the U.S. Virgin Islands
– Examined internal bank emails, due diligence reports, and estate planning documents released under the Epstein Files Transparency Act

The result is a “ready-made roadmap for prosecutors, investigators and members of Congress to finally start holding the Epstein class accountable.”



II. THE NUMBERS: 1.4 BILLION IN SUSPICIOUS TRANSACTIONS

The report alleges that the three banks facilitated more than 1.4 billion in suspicious wire transfers connected to Epstein. All three banks waited until 2019 โ€” after Epstein was arrested on federal sex trafficking charges โ€” to retroactively flag “thousands of questionable transactions.”

JPMorgan Chase: Over 1 Billion in Delayed Reporting

JPMorgan Chase served as Epstein’s primary bank from 1998 to 2013. According to the report, the bank delayed reporting over 1 billion in suspicious Epstein-linked transfers to the Treasury Department.

– On September 26, 2019 โ€” six years after closing Epstein’s accounts โ€” JPMorgan retroactively flagged 4,725 wire transfers totaling nearly 1.1 billion.
– On August 13, 2019, JPMorgan flagged another 469 wire transfers totaling 201 million, including payments to women in Russia, Belarus, and Turkmenistan using foreign correspondent bank accounts at now-sanctioned Russian banks.
– JPMorgan earned approximately 8.1 million in fees from Epstein between 2009 and 2014.
– Epstein and his associates maintained 134 different bank accounts at JPMorgan, including accounts for Ghislaine Maxwell, Darren Indyke, Richard Kahn, and Nadia Marcinkova.

The report found that JPMorgan did not file a single SAR on Epstein for five years between May 2003 and September 2008, even though Epstein withdrew more than 3.5 million in cash during that period.

Deutsche Bank: 250 Million Reported Years Too Late

Deutsche Bank took Epstein on as a client in 2013 after JPMorgan exited the relationship. The report alleges that the German lender failed to promptly report more than 250 million in suspicious transactions, including funds used to pay women in Russia and other Eastern European countries.

In 2019, Deutsche Bank retroactively flagged 1,140 wire transfers totaling 147 million in and out of Epstein’s accounts.

Bank of America: 170 Million in Payments from Leon Black

Bank of America held accounts used by billionaire Leon Black to make payments to Epstein. The report alleges that approximately 170 million in Epstein-related transactions moved through the bank between 2012 and 2017 โ€” but the bank did not report them until February 2020, nearly eight months after Epstein’s arrest and five to seven years after the payments occurred.

Bank of America’s own SAR filing stated that the wire activity had “no apparent economic, business or lawful purpose” and “does not have a verifiable business purpose.”

The report notes that 90% of Epstein’s income over a five-year period came from Leon Black, making him “Epstein’s single largest source of funding.”



III. THE 13 BANKERS: NAMES, ROLES, AND ALLEGATIONS

The report names 13 senior bankers at JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, and Deutsche Bank who allegedly protected Epstein. As of the report’s release, only one โ€” Jes Staley โ€” has faced any known consequences (he was forced out as CEO of Barclays). The rest remain employed in “extraordinarily lucrative positions.”

JPMorgan Chase Executives:

Name Role Allegations
Jes Staley Former Head of JPMorgan Private Bank Personally compromised by Epstein; central to maintaining Epstein’s relationship with JPMC; later became CEO of Barclays
Mary Erdoes CEO, JPMorgan Asset & Wealth Management In constant contact with Epstein; approved continued work with him after termination; signed off on Epstein working with Leon Black through client accounts
Stephen Cutler Former General Counsel, JPMC “Ultimate decider” on keeping Epstein as a client; overruled compliance teams trying to exit Epstein
John Duffy Former CEO, JPMC U.S. Private Bank Coached Epstein on how to withdraw cash through shell companies instead of personal accounts; personally managed Epstein’s “aviation account” withdrawals
Paul Morris Senior Private Banker Ranked Epstein among his top 3 clients with 500M net worth; part of Epstein’s core banking team
Mary Casey Vice Chair, JPMC Private Bank Received email from Jeff Matusow asking to be his “buddy” on Epstein’s accounts the day Epstein was released from jail in 2009
Jeff Matusow JPMorgan Private Banker Emailed Mary Casey on July 22, 2009: “Will you be my buddy on this one??” regarding Epstein
Justin Nelson JPMC Banker Handled Leon Black referral from Epstein in August 2013 after Epstein was terminated
David Brigstocke JPMC Executive Named in report as part of Epstein’s protection network
Paul Barrett JPMC Executive Named in report as part of Epstein’s protection network
Karen Weiss JPMC Executive Named in report as part of Epstein’s protection network
Stewart Oldfield JPMC Executive Named in report as part of Epstein’s protection network

Bank of America Executives:

Name Role Allegations
Jane Heller Black’s Principal Banker at BofA Supervised Black’s accounts; called Black’s family office “every day”; arranged 484M art-secured loan and 18M yacht loan for Black
Karen Weiss BofA Executive Co-managed Black’s accounts with Heller; failed to scrutinize 170M in payments to Epstein



IV. JPMORGAN EXECUTIVES COACHED EPSTEIN ON HOW TO CONCEAL WITHDRAWALS

One of the most damning findings involves John Duffy, then-CEO of JPMC’s U.S. Private Bank.

In March 2012, after a risk management executive flagged 160,000 in cash withdrawals by Epstein, Duffy responded that he had personally asked Epstein to stop withdrawing cash from personal accounts and instead do it from his “aviation account” to make the transactions appear more legitimate. Duffy wrote: “this is a better pattern than I thought…I did ask him to withdraw this cash from his aviation account for these payments.”

A 2013 JPMC compliance investigation noted that “traveling abroad to pay for fuel is not normal business practice” and that it was “unusual” for Epstein to withdraw so much cash for jet fuel, especially since he “maintains multiple homes and likely is not always leaving the country from New York where the cash is being withdrawn.” Despite this, JPMC filed no contemporaneous SAR.

The report concludes: “Top JPMC executives coached Epstein on how to withdraw cash through shell companies instead of his personal accounts, helping him conceal information from compliance personnel and government regulators.”



V. EPSTEIN PAID GHISLAINE MAXWELL 25 MILLION FROM JPMC ACCOUNTS

The report reveals that Epstein paid his convicted co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell at least 25 million from his JPMorgan accounts, including:

– 18.3 million in 1999
– 5 million in 2002
– 7.4 million in June 2007 for a helicopter purchase through “Air Ghislaine, Inc.”

These payments were made while Maxwell was actively assisting Epstein’s sex trafficking operation.



VI. JPMORGAN CONTINUED WORKING WITH EPSTEIN AFTER “TERMINATING” HIM

Despite claiming to have ended its relationship with Epstein in 2013, newly unsealed emails show that Mary Erdoes and other senior executives blessed efforts to continue working with Epstein after his termination.

On August 14, 2013, John Duffy emailed Erdoes: “He maintains that he will become Leon’s primary advisor and will be calling the shots. Wants to be sure he can work with us on Leon and others.” Duffy asked: “I told him we would work with him as long as it was through the client accounts, JE entities would not be acceptable. That’s ok right?”

Erdoes responded with a single letter: “Y.”

This indicates JPMorgan may have delayed reporting Epstein’s suspicious activity because the bank wanted to keep using him as a source of referrals for other ultra-wealthy clients, particularly Leon Black.



VII. THE ACCOMPLICES: INDYKE, KAH & BELLER

The report calls for criminal investigations into three key Epstein aides who “moved significant amounts of cash around the world on Epstein’s behalf”:

Name Role Key Finding
Darren Indyke Epstein’s longtime attorney; co-executor of estate Had signatory authority over Epstein’s accounts; controlled movement of funds
Richard Kahn Epstein’s accountant; co-executor of estate Moved significant cash for Epstein
Harry Beller Epstein’s in-house accountant Had power of attorney over Epstein’s JPMC accounts; withdrew 920,000 in cash between 2009-2013; cashed 20 checks totaling 800,000 in 40,000 increments between 2007-2008

SARs filed by JPMC documented that “both Indyke and Beller controlled movement of Epstein’s funds as signers of several Epstein accounts.”



VIII. OBSTRUCTION: TRUMP ADMINISTRATION, TREASURY, AND CBS NEWS

Treasury Department Obstruction

The report accuses the Trump-era Treasury Department of actively obstructing the investigation:

– Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent rejected three requests from Wyden to provide Epstein’s bank records to the Senate Finance Committee
– In 2024, committee investigators had to conduct an in-camera review at Treasury headquarters because Bessent refused to produce the records
– Senate Republicans blocked the Produce Epstein Treasury Records Act
– Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche (Trump’s former personal lawyer) allegedly intervened to block the DEA from complying with Wyden’s requests

The report states: “In the past few months, Secretary Bessent has directed FinCEN to conduct a number of sweeping investigations into alleged fraud in Minnesota, yet scoffs at the idea of investigating the role Wall Street banks played in enabling Epstein’s global sex trafficking for decades.”

CBS News Suppresses 60 Minutes Segment

On March 26, 2026, Senator Wyden sat for a taped interview with then-60 Minutes correspondent Sharyn Alfonsi about the Epstein banking investigation. Shortly after the taping, CBS News leadership fired Alfonsi. The interview will not be aired, and it is unclear whether the broader segment will be broadcast.

Wyden stated: “David Ellison’s handpicked partisan lieutenant killed the segment and fired the lead reporter on the piece.”



IX. BANK RESPONSES

Bank Response
JPMorgan Chase “Strongly disagrees with the report’s conclusions…based on many false claims contradicted by easily-found public information.” Claims it began flagging transactions as early as 2002 and that no law enforcement agency contacted the bank for further action.
Bank of America “We take our legal and regulatory obligations seriously and, as we have previously said, the bank did not facilitate wrongdoing.”
Deutsche Bank “The bank regrets our historical connection with Jeffrey Epstein. We have cooperated with regulatory and law enforcement agencies…and have been transparent in addressing deficiencies.”

Notably, all three banks refused to cooperate with Senator Wyden’s investigation, declining to answer questions or provide documents.



X. 900 MILLION IN SETTLEMENTS โ€” BUT NO INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNTABILITY

Banks and Epstein’s estate have paid more than 900 million to settle Epstein-related lawsuits:

– JPMorgan Chase: 290 million (2023)
– Deutsche Bank: 75 million + 150 million NYDFS fine
– Bank of America: Undisclosed settlement amounts
– Leon Black: 62.5 million settlement with USVI (avoided criminal prosecution)
– Epstein Estate: Multiple nine-figure settlements

Yet not a single senior banker named in the report has faced criminal charges or regulatory discipline. Most remain in senior positions earning millions annually.



XI. WYDEN’S PROPOSED REFORMS

Senator Wyden plans to introduce legislation to reform federal anti-money laundering laws, including:

1. Personal confirmation by bankers that they have reviewed and conducted legally required due diligence for large wire transfers involving ultra-wealthy clients
2. Increased civil and criminal penalties for bankers who fail to report suspicious transactions in a timely manner
3. Mandatory notification to Treasury when a client is exited over concerns about human trafficking, money laundering, or other crimes
4. Community bank exemption from the new requirements



XII. CONCLUSION: THE EPSTEIN CLASS

Senator Wyden’s report is not merely about Jeffrey Epstein. It exposes a systemic rot at the heart of Wall Street: the willingness of the world’s most powerful banks to “look the other way” when the client is wealthy enough.

The evidence is now public. The names are named. The transactions are documented. The only question remaining is whether federal prosecutors, regulators, and Congress will act โ€” or whether the “Epstein class” will once again escape accountability.

As Wyden put it: “Jeffrey Epstein’s crimes were hiding in plain sight.”



SOURCES

– Primary Source: U.S. Senate Committee on Finance, “Looking the Other Way: How Wall Street Banks Enabled Jeffrey Epstein’s Sex Trafficking” (August 4, 2026) โ€” [Full PDF](https://www.finance.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/wyden_wall_street_epstein_report.pdf)
– Senate Press Release: [finance.senate.gov](https://www.finance.senate.gov/ranking-members-news/wyden-releases-new-report-on-failure-of-wall-street-banks-to-blow-the-whistle-on-jeffrey-epsteins-sex-trafficking-and-money-laundering-schemes)
– American Banker: [Senate report: Three big banks ignored red flags on Epstein](https://www.americanbanker.com/news/senate-report-three-big-banks-ignored-red-flags-on-epstein)
– NPR: [Senate Democrats say banks turned blind eye to suspicious moves by Jeffrey Epstein](https://www.npr.org/2026/08/04/nx-s1-5919238/jeffrey-epstein-jpmorgan-bank-of-america-deutsche-bank-senate-democrats)
– The American Prospect: [Sen. Wyden Report: Banks Systematically Ignored Jeffrey Epstein’s Crimes](https://prospect.org/2026/08/05/sen-wyden-report-banks-systematically-ignored-jeffrey-epsteins-crimes/)
– Axios: [Deutsche Bank, JPMorgan and BofA enabled Epstein](https://www.axios.com/2026/08/06/epstein-deutsche-bank-jpmorgan-bofa-wyden)



This is a developing story. Bernd Pulch will continue to monitor federal prosecutorial and regulatory responses to the Wyden report.

Hier ist die vollstรคndige deutsche รœbersetzung des Artikels:



โ€žWEGSCHAUEN”: Senatsbericht deckt auf, wie JPMorgan Chase, Deutsche Bank & Bank of America Jeffrey Epsteins Sexhandels-Imperium von 1,4 Milliarden Dollar ermรถglichten

INTELLIGENCE BRIEFING โ€” 9. AUGUST 2026



ZUSAMMENFASSUNG

Ein brisanter 67-seitiger Bericht des ranghรถchsten Mitglieds des Senatsausschusses fรผr Finanzen, Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), verรถffentlicht am 4. August 2026, enthรผllt, dass drei der grรถรŸten Banken der Welt โ€” JPMorgan Chase, Deutsche Bank und Bank of America โ€” systematisch gegen bundesstaatliche Geldwรคschegesetze verstoรŸen haben, um den verurteilten Sexhรคndler Jeffrey Epstein zu schรผtzen. Der Bericht mit dem Titel โ€žLooking the Other Way” (Wegschauen) schlieรŸt eine vierjรคhrige Untersuchung ab und nennt 13 leitende Banker, die Epstein angeblich vor der Bundesaufklรคrung abschirmten und ihm ermรถglichten, รผber fast zwei Jahrzehnte mehr als 1,4 Milliarden Dollar in verdรคchtigen Transaktionen zu bewegen.

Die Untersuchung ergab, dass die Banken versรคumten, rechtzeitig Verdachtsanzeigen (SARs) einzureichen, Epstein aktiv dabei unterwiesen, wie er Bargeldabhebungen รผber Briefkastenfirmen verschleiern kรถnne, und auch nach der formalen Kรผndigung des Kundenverhรคltnisses informell mit ihm zusammenarbeiteten โ€” alles unter dem Wissen um die โ€žallgegenwรคrtige Prรคsenz junger Frauen oder minderjรคhriger Mรคdchen in Epsteins Hรคusern”.



I. DIE UNTERSUCHUNG

Senator Wydens Untersuchung begann 2022, nachdem ein von der Apollo Global Management-Geschรคftsfรผhrung in Auftrag gegebener Bericht enthรผllte, dass der Milliardรคr Leon Black Epstein รผber fรผnf Jahre hinweg 158 Millionen Dollar fรผr angebliche Steuer- und Nachlassplanungsberatung gezahlt hatte โ€” eine Summe, die typische Vergรผtungen fรผr solche Dienstleistungen bei Weitem รผbersteigt.

รœber vier Jahre hinweg fรผhrte Wydens Mitarbeiter Folgendes durch:
– รœberprรผfung von tausenden Verdachtsanzeigen (SARs), die beim US-Finanzministerium eingereicht wurden
– Eine geheime Prรผfung der Treasury-Epstein-Akten am 14. Februar 2024
– Analyse freigegebener Gerichtsakten aus Klagen von Epsteins Opfern und den Amerikanischen Jungferninseln (USVI)
– Untersuchung interner Bank-E-Mails, Due-Diligence-Berichte und Nachlassplanungsdokumente, die im Rahmen des Epstein Files Transparency Act freigegeben wurden

Das Ergebnis ist eine โ€žfertige StraรŸenkarte fรผr Staatsanwรคlte, Ermittler und Mitglieder des Kongresses, um endlich damit zu beginnen, die Epstein-Klasse zur Verantwortung zu ziehen.”



II. DIE ZAHLEN: 1,4 MILLIARDEN DOLLAR IN VERDร„CHTIGEN TRANSAKTIONEN

Der Bericht behauptet, dass die drei Banken mehr als 1,4 Milliarden Dollar in verdรคchtigen รœberweisungen im Zusammenhang mit Epstein ermรถglichten. Alle drei Banken warteten bis 2019 โ€” nach Epsteins Verhaftung wegen Bundes-Sexhandels โ€”, um nachtrรคglich โ€žtausende fragwรผrdige Transaktionen” zu kennzeichnen.

JPMorgan Chase: รœber 1 Milliarde Dollar in verspรคteter Meldung

JPMorgan Chase war von 1998 bis 2013 Epsteins Hausbank. Laut Bericht verzรถgerte die Bank die Meldung von รผber 1 Milliarde Dollar in verdรคchtigen, mit Epstein verbundenen รœberweisungen an das Finanzministerium.

– Am 26. September 2019 โ€” sechs Jahre nach SchlieรŸung von Epsteins Konten โ€” markierte JPMorgan nachtrรคglich 4.725 รœberweisungen im Gesamtwert von fast 1,1 Milliarden Dollar.
– Am 13. August 2019 markierte JPMorgan weitere 469 รœberweisungen im Wert von 201 Millionen Dollar, darunter Zahlungen an Frauen in Russland, Belarus und Turkmenistan รผber Auslandskorrespondenzbankkonten bei mittlerweile sanktionierten russischen Banken.
– JPMorgan verdiente zwischen 2009 und 2014 etwa 8,1 Millionen Dollar an Gebรผhren von Epstein.
– Epstein und seine Assoziierten unterhielten 134 verschiedene Bankkonten bei JPMorgan, darunter Konten fรผr Ghislaine Maxwell, Darren Indyke, Richard Kahn und Nadia Marcinkova.

Der Bericht ergab, dass JPMorgan zwischen Mai 2003 und September 2008 keine einzige SAR zu Epstein einreichte, obwohl Epstein in diesem Zeitraum mehr als 3,5 Millionen Dollar in bar abhob.

Deutsche Bank: 250 Millionen Dollar, Jahre zu spรคt gemeldet

Die Deutsche Bank nahm Epstein 2013 als Kunden auf, nachdem JPMorgan das Verhรคltnis beendet hatte. Der Bericht behauptet, dass der deutsche Kreditgeber versรคumte, rechtzeitig mehr als 250 Millionen Dollar in verdรคchtigen Transaktionen zu melden, darunter Gelder, die zur Bezahlung von Frauen in Russland und anderen osteuropรคischen Lรคndern verwendet wurden.

2019 markierte die Deutsche Bank nachtrรคglich 1.140 รœberweisungen im Gesamtwert von 147 Millionen Dollar, die auf Epsteins Konten flossen und von diesen abgingen.

Bank of America: 170 Millionen Dollar in Zahlungen von Leon Black

Die Bank of America unterhielt Konten, die der Milliardรคr Leon Black nutzte, um Zahlungen an Epstein zu leisten. Der Bericht behauptet, dass etwa 170 Millionen Dollar in Epstein-bezogenen Transaktionen zwischen 2012 und 2017 durch die Bank flossen โ€” die Bank meldete sie jedoch erst im Februar 2020, fast acht Monate nach Epsteins Verhaftung und fรผnf bis sieben Jahre nach den Zahlungen.

Die eigene SAR-Einreichung der Bank of America stellte fest, dass die รœberweisungen โ€žkeinen erkennbaren wirtschaftlichen, geschรคftlichen oder rechtmรครŸigen Zweck” hatten und โ€žkeinen nachweisbaren Geschรคftszweck” darstellten.

Der Bericht weist darauf hin, dass 90 % von Epsteins Einkommen รผber einen Fรผnfjahreszeitraum von Leon Black stammten, was ihn zu โ€žEpsteins mit Abstand grรถรŸter Geldquelle” machte.



III. DIE 13 BANKER: NAMEN, ROLLEN UND VORWรœRFE

Der Bericht nennt 13 leitende Banker bei JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America und der Deutschen Bank, die Epstein angeblich schรผtzten. Zum Zeitpunkt der Verรถffentlichung des Berichts hatte nur einer โ€” Jes Staley โ€” irgendwelche bekannten Konsequenzen zu tragen (er wurde als CEO von Barclays entlassen). Die รผbrigen sind weiterhin in โ€žauรŸerordentlich lukrativen Positionen” beschรคftigt.

JPMorgan Chase-Fรผhrungskrรคfte:

Name Rolle Vorwรผrfe
Jes Staley Ehemaliger Leiter der JPMorgan Private Bank Persรถnlich von Epstein kompromittiert; zentral fรผr die Aufrechterhaltung von Epsteins Beziehung zu JPMC; spรคter CEO von Barclays
Mary Erdoes CEO, JPMorgan Asset & Wealth Management Im stรคndigen Kontakt mit Epstein; billigte die Fortsetzung der Zusammenarbeit nach der Kรผndigung; genehmigte Epsteins Arbeit mit Leon Black รผber Kundenkonten
Stephen Cutler Ehemaliger General Counsel, JPMC โ€žUltimativer Entscheider” bei der Beibehaltung Epsteins als Kunde; setzte sich รผber Compliance-Teams hinweg, die Epsteins Ausstieg forderten
John Duffy Ehemaliger CEO, JPMC U.S. Private Bank Unterwies Epstein, wie er Bargeld รผber Briefkastenfirmen statt รผber Privatkonten abheben kรถnne; verwaltete persรถnlich Epsteins โ€žLuftfahrtkonto”-Abhebungen
Paul Morris Senior Private Banker Stufte Epstein unter seine Top-3-Kunden mit 500 Mio.  Nettovermรถgen ein; Teil von Epsteins Kernteam
Mary Casey Vizevorsitzende, JPMC Private Bank Erhielt am Tag von Epsteins Entlassung aus dem Gefรคngnis 2009 eine E-Mail von Jeff Matusow, der sie bat, seine โ€žBuddy” bei Epsteins Konten zu sein
Jeff Matusow JPMorgan Private Banker E-Mail an Mary Casey am 22. Juli 2009: โ€žWill you be my buddy on this one??” bezรผglich Epstein
Justin Nelson JPMC-Banker Bearbeitete Leon Black-Empfehlung von Epstein im August 2013, nachdem Epstein gekรผndigt worden war
David Brigstocke JPMC-Fรผhrungskraft Im Bericht als Teil von Epsteins Schutznetzwerk genannt
Paul Barrett JPMC-Fรผhrungskraft Im Bericht als Teil von Epsteins Schutznetzwerk genannt
Karen Weiss JPMC-Fรผhrungskraft Im Bericht als Teil von Epsteins Schutznetzwerk genannt
Stewart Oldfield JPMC-Fรผhrungskraft Im Bericht als Teil von Epsteins Schutznetzwerk genannt

Bank of America-Fรผhrungskrรคfte:

Name Rolle Vorwรผrfe
Jane Heller Blacks Hauptbankerin bei BofA รœberwachte Blacks Konten; rief im Familienoffice Blacks โ€žjeden Tag” an; arrangierte 484-Mio.- Kunst-gesichertes Darlehen und 18-Mio.- Yacht-Darlehen fรผr Black
Karen Weiss BofA-Fรผhrungskraft Co-verwaltete Blacks Konten mit Heller; versรคumte es, 170 Mio.  an Zahlungen an Epstein zu prรผfen



IV. JPMORGAN-FรœHRUNGSKRร„FTE UNTERWIESEN EPSTEIN, WIE ER ABHEBUNGEN VERSCHLEIERN Kร–NNTE

Einer der verheerendsten Befunde betrifft John Duffy, damals CEO der JPMC U.S. Private Bank.

Im Mรคrz 2012, nachdem ein Risikomanagement-Executive 160.000 Dollar in Bargeldabhebungen durch Epstein markiert hatte, antwortete Duffy, dass er Epstein persรถnlich gebeten habe, auf Bargeldabhebungen von Privatkonten zu verzichten und diese stattdessen von seinem โ€žLuftfahrtkonto” vorzunehmen, um die Transaktionen legitimer erscheinen zu lassen. Duffy schrieb: โ€žthis is a better pattern than I thought…I did ask him to withdraw this cash from his aviation account for these payments.” (โ€žDas ist ein besseres Muster, als ich dachte… Ich habe ihn gebeten, dieses Bargeld von seinem Luftfahrtkonto fรผr diese Zahlungen abzuheben.”)

Eine JPMC-Compliance-Untersuchung aus dem Jahr 2013 stellte fest, dass โ€ždas Reisen ins Ausland, um Treibstoff zu bezahlen, keine normale Geschรคftspraxis” sei und dass es โ€žungewรถhnlich” war, dass Epstein so viel Bargeld fรผr Flugzeugtreibstoff abhob, zumal er โ€žmehrere Hรคuser unterhรคlt und wahrscheinlich nicht immer von New York aus ins Ausland fliegt, wo das Bargeld abgehoben wird.” Trotzdem reichte JPMC keine zeitnahe SAR ein.

Der Bericht kommt zu dem Schluss: โ€žTop-JPMC-Fรผhrungskrรคfte unterwiesen Epstein, wie er Bargeld รผber Briefkastenfirmen statt รผber seine Privatkonten abheben kรถnnte, und halfen ihm dabei, Informationen vor Compliance-Personal und Regierungsbehรถrden zu verschleiern.”



V. EPSTEIN ZAHLTE GHISLAINE MAXWELL 25 MILLIONEN DOLLAR VON JPMC-KONTEN

Der Bericht enthรผllt, dass Epstein seine verurteilte Mittรคterin Ghislaine Maxwell mindestens 25 Millionen Dollar von seinen JPMorgan-Konten zahlte, darunter:

– 18,3 Millionen Dollar im Jahr 1999
– 5 Millionen Dollar im Jahr 2002
– 7,4 Millionen Dollar im Juni 2007 fรผr einen Hubschrauberkauf รผber โ€žAir Ghislaine, Inc.”

Diese Zahlungen erfolgten, wรคhrend Maxwell aktiv bei Epsteins Sexhandelsoperation assistierte.



VI. JPMORGAN ARBEITETE NACH DER โ€žKรœNDIGUNG” WEITER MIT EPSTEIN ZUSAMMEN

Trotz der Behauptung, das Verhรคltnis zu Epstein 2013 beendet zu haben, zeigen neu freigegebene E-Mails, dass Mary Erdoes und andere leitende Fรผhrungskrรคfte die Fortsetzung der Zusammenarbeit mit Epstein nach seiner Kรผndigung segneten.

Am 14. August 2013 schrieb John Duffy an Erdoes: โ€žHe maintains that he will become Leon’s primary advisor and will be calling the shots. Wants to be sure he can work with us on Leon and others.” (โ€žEr behauptet, dass er Leons Hauptberater werden und die Fรคden in der Hand halten wird. Er mรถchte sicher sein, dass er mit uns an Leon und anderen arbeiten kann.”) Duffy fragte: โ€žI told him we would work with him as long as it was through the client accounts, JE entities would not be acceptable. That’s ok right?” (โ€žIch sagte ihm, wir wรผrden mit ihm arbeiten, solange es รผber die Kundenkonten lรคuft, JE-Entitรคten wรคren nicht akzeptabel. Das ist in Ordnung, oder?”)

Erdoes antwortete mit einem einzigen Buchstaben: โ€žY.”

Dies deutet darauf hin, dass JPMorgan die Meldung von Epsteins verdรคchtigen Aktivitรคten mรถglicherweise verzรถgerte, weil die Bank ihn weiterhin als Quelle fรผr Empfehlungen anderer ultrareicher Kunden nutzen wollte, insbesondere Leon Black.



VII. DIE KOMPLIZEN: INDYKE, KAHN & BELLER

Der Bericht fordert strafrechtliche Untersuchungen gegen drei Schlรผsselassistenten Epsteins, die โ€žerhebliche Geldbetrรคge auf Epsteins GeheiรŸ um die Welt bewegten”:

Name Rolle Wichtigster Befund
Darren Indyke Epsteins langjรคhriger Anwalt; Co-Verwalter des Nachlasses Hatte Zeichnungsbefugnis รผber Epsteins Konten; kontrollierte Geldbewegungen
Richard Kahn Epsteins Buchhalter; Co-Verwalter des Nachlasses Bewegte erhebliche Geldbetrรคge fรผr Epstein
Harry Beller Epsteins interner Buchhalter Hatte Vollmacht รผber Epsteins JPMC-Konten; hob zwischen 2009-2013 920.000 Dollar in bar ab; lรถste zwischen 2007-2008 20 Schecks im Gesamtwert von 800.000 Dollar in 40.000-Dollar-Schritten ein

Von JPMC eingereichte SARs dokumentierten, dass โ€žsowohl Indyke als auch Beller die Bewegung von Epsteins Geldern als Unterzeichner mehrerer Epstein-Konten kontrollierten.”



VIII. BEHINDERUNG: TRUMP-ADMINISTRATION, FINANZMINISTERIUM UND CBS NEWS

Behinderung durch das Finanzministerium

Der Bericht wirft dem Finanzministerium der Trump-ร„ra vor, die Untersuchung aktiv zu behindern:

– Finanzminister Scott Bessent lehnte drei Anfragen von Wyden ab, Epsteins Bankunterlagen dem Senatsausschuss fรผr Finanzen zur Verfรผgung zu stellen
– 2024 mussten Ausschuss-Ermittler eine geheime Prรผfung im Treasury-Hauptquartier durchfรผhren, weil Bessent die Unterlagen nicht aushรคndigen wollte
– Senatsrepublikaner blockierten den Produce Epstein Treasury Records Act
– Der stellvertretende Generalstaatsanwalt Todd Blanche (Trumps ehemaliger persรถnlicher Anwalt) soll angeblich eingeschritten sein, um die DEA davon abzuhalten, Wydens Anfragen nachzukommen

Der Bericht stellt fest: โ€žIn den letzten Monaten hat Secretary Bessent FinCEN angewiesen, eine Reihe umfassender Untersuchungen zu angeblichem Betrug in Minnesota durchzufรผhren, verachtet aber die Idee, die Rolle zu untersuchen, die Wall-Street-Banken รผber Jahrzehnte bei der Ermรถglichung von Epsteins globalem Sexhandel gespielt haben.”

CBS News unterdrรผckt 60-Minutes-Segment

Am 26. Mรคrz 2026 nahm Senator Wyden ein Band-Interview mit der damaligen 60-Minutes-Korrespondentin Sharyn Alfonsi รผber die Epstein-Banking-Untersuchung auf. Kurz nach der Aufnahme entlieรŸ die CBS-News-Fรผhrung Alfonsi. Das Interview wird nicht ausgestrahlt, und es ist unklar, ob das breitere Segment gesendet wird.

Wyden erklรคrte: โ€žDavid Ellisons handverlesener parteilicher Stellvertreter hat das Segment getรถtet und die leitende Reporterin des Stรผcks gefeuert.”



IX. REAKTIONEN DER BANKEN

Bank Reaktion
JPMorgan Chase โ€žStimmt den Schlussfolgerungen des Berichts nachdrรผcklich nicht zu… basierend auf vielen falschen Behauptungen, die durch leicht auffindbare รถffentliche Informationen widerlegt werden.” Behauptet, bereits 2002 mit der Kennzeichnung von Transaktionen begonnen zu haben, und dass keine Strafverfolgungsbehรถrde die Bank um weitere MaรŸnahmen gebeten habe.
Bank of America โ€žWir nehmen unsere rechtlichen und regulatorischen Verpflichtungen ernst und, wie wir bereits gesagt haben, hat die Bank kein Fehlverhalten ermรถglicht.”
Deutsche Bank โ€žDie Bank bedauert ihre historische Verbindung mit Jeffrey Epstein. Wir haben mit Aufsichts- und Strafverfolgungsbehรถrden zusammengearbeitet… und waren transparent bei der Behebung von Mรคngeln.”

Bemerkenswerterweise weigerten sich alle drei Banken, mit Senator Wydens Untersuchung zusammenzuarbeiten, und lehnten es ab, Fragen zu beantworten oder Unterlagen bereitzustellen.



X. 900 MILLIONEN DOLLAR AN VERGLEICHEN โ€” ABER KEINE PERSร–NLICHE VERANTWORTUNG

Banken und Epsteins Nachlass haben mehr als 900 Millionen Dollar gezahlt, um Epstein-bezogene Klagen beizulegen:

– JPMorgan Chase: 290 Millionen Dollar (2023)
– Deutsche Bank: 75 Millionen Dollar + 150 Millionen Dollar NYDFS-Strafe
– Bank of America: Unbekannte Vergleichsbetrรคge
– Leon Black: 62,5 Millionen Dollar Vergleich mit USVI (vermied strafrechtliche Verfolgung)
– Epstein-Nachlass: Mehrere neunstellige Vergleiche

Dennoch hat kein einziger leitender Banker, der im Bericht genannt wird, strafrechtliche Anklagen oder regulatorische Disziplinarverfahren erlebt. Die meisten bleiben in leitenden Positionen und verdienen jรคhrlich Millionen.



XI. WYDENS GEPLANTE REFORMEN

Senator Wyden plant die Vorlage von Gesetzgebung zur Reform der bundesstaatlichen Geldwรคschegesetze, darunter:

1. Persรถnliche Bestรคtigung durch Banker, dass sie die gesetzlich vorgeschriebene Due Diligence fรผr groรŸe รœberweisungen ultrareicher Kunden geprรผft und durchgefรผhrt haben
2. Erhรถhte zivil- und strafrechtliche Sanktionen fรผr Banker, die versaumen, verdรคchtige Transaktionen rechtzeitig zu melden
3. Verpflichtende Meldung an das Finanzministerium, wenn ein Kunde wegen Bedenken hinsichtlich Menschenhandels, Geldwรคsche oder anderer Straftaten ausgeschlossen wird
4. Befreiung von Gemeinschaftsbanken von den neuen Anforderungen



XII. SCHLUSSFOLGERUNG: DIE EPSTEIN-KLASSE

Senator Wydens Bericht handelt nicht nur von Jeffrey Epstein. Er deckt ein systemisches Fรคulnis im Herzen von Wall Street auf: die Bereitschaft der mรคchtigsten Banken der Welt, โ€žwegzuschauen”, wenn der Kunde reich genug ist.

Die Beweise sind nun รถffentlich. Die Namen sind genannt. Die Transaktionen sind dokumentiert. Die einzige verbleibende Frage ist, ob Bundesanwรคlte, Regulierungsbehรถrden und der Kongress handeln werden โ€” oder ob die โ€žEpstein-Klasse” erneut der Verantwortung entgeht.

Wie Wyden es ausdrรผckte: โ€žJeffrey Epsteins Verbrechen lagen auf der Hand.”



QUELLEN

– Primรคrquelle: U.S. Senate Committee on Finance, โ€žLooking the Other Way: How Wall Street Banks Enabled Jeffrey Epstein’s Sex Trafficking” (4. August 2026) โ€” [Vollstรคndiges PDF](https://www.finance.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/wyden_wall_street_epstein_report.pdf)
– Senatspressemitteilung: [finance.senate.gov](https://www.finance.senate.gov/ranking-members-news/wyden-releases-new-report-on-failure-of-wall-street-banks-to-blow-the-whistle-on-jeffrey-epsteins-sex-trafficking-and-money-laundering-schemes)
– American Banker: [Senate report: Three big banks ignored red flags on Epstein](https://www.americanbanker.com/news/senate-report-three-big-banks-ignored-red-flags-on-epstein)
– NPR: [Senate Democrats say banks turned blind eye to suspicious moves by Jeffrey Epstein](https://www.npr.org/2026/08/04/nx-s1-5919238/jeffrey-epstein-jpmorgan-bank-of-america-deutsche-bank-senate-democrats)
– The American Prospect: [Sen. Wyden Report: Banks Systematically Ignored Jeffrey Epstein’s Crimes](https://prospect.org/2026/08/05/sen-wyden-report-banks-systematically-ignored-jeffrey-epsteins-crimes/)
– Axios: [Deutsche Bank, JPMorgan and BofA enabled Epstein](https://www.axios.com/2026/08/06/epstein-deutsche-bank-jpmorgan-bofa-wyden)



Dies ist eine laufende Geschichte. Bernd Pulch wird die Reaktionen von Bundesanwรคlten und Regulierungsbehรถrden auf den Wyden-Bericht weiterhin verfolgen.

THE EPSTEIN FINANCIAL ARCHIPELAGO

THE BANKERS WHO BOUGHT EPSTEIN’S SILENCE
Named. Shamed. Still Employed.
Jes Staley. Paul Morris. Rosemary Vrablic. Michael O’Neill. Mary Erdoes. Leon Black. Glenn Dubin.
They processed $1.5 billion in suspicious transactions. They overruled compliance officers who flagged the crimes. They bought criminal immunity with your pension money.
Not one has faced arrest.
Full executive names, internal emails, and unredacted documents: Patreon.com/berndpulch

THE EPSTEIN FINANCIAL ARCHIPELAGO: Mapping Wall Street’s Complicity in a Criminal Enterprise

How America’s most powerful banks and hedge funds enabled Jeffrey Epstein’s transnational sex trafficking operationโ€”and why the money trail leads to questions that remain unanswered


๐Ÿ” DEEP DIVE ACCESS: For exclusive documents, extended financial analysis, and insider intelligence on the Epstein network not available in this public report, subscribe to Patreon.com/berndpulch or join the Patron’s Vault waiting list at office@berndpulch.org.


INTRODUCTION: The $1.5 Billion Question

In September 2025, during a House Judiciary Committee hearing, FBI Director Kash Patel made a startling admission: federal investigators had identified $1.5 billion in suspicious financial transactions tied to Jeffrey Epstein’s sex trafficking network, reported by JPMorgan Chase, Deutsche Bank, Bank of America, and Bank of New York Mellon. Yet despite this mountain of financial evidence, the FBI has failed to “follow the money” in any meaningful way.

This revelation came as Congress passed the Epstein Files Transparency Act in November 2025, mandating the release of 6 million pages of documents. To date, 3.5 million pages have been releasedโ€”including financial ledgers, flight manifests, and internal bank communications that paint a damning picture of institutional complicity.

The story that emerges is not merely one of a single predator operating in isolation, but of an entire financial ecosystem that enabled, protected, and profited from criminality on an industrial scale.


THE WALL STREET FIRMS: A ROGUE’S GALLERY

The financial institutions that serviced Epstein’s empire represent a cross-section of American and international banking power. Each played a distinct role in maintaining the infrastructure of Epstein’s operations:

1. JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.

The Primary Enabler (1998โ€“2013)

Epstein’s relationship with America’s largest bank began in 1998 and continued for 15 years, spanning his 2008 conviction for soliciting prostitution from a minor. Internal documents reveal that JPMorgan executives were aware of Epstein’s criminality years before federal prosecutors intervened.

Key revelations from the 2023 Senate Finance Committee investigation:

  • $4.3 million in transactions flagged as suspicious while Epstein was alive and actively trafficking victims
  • $1.3 billion in retroactive suspicious activity reports filed after Epstein’s 2019 deathโ€”nearly 300 times the amount reported during his lifetime
  • 1,200 emails between Epstein and JPMorgan executive Jes Staley, including references to Disney princess code names for women and photos of young women in “seductive poses”

Staley, who later became CEO of Barclays, has admitted under oath to having sexual relations with Epstein’s staff members. He described his relationship with Epstein as “profound” and referred to him as “family” in internal communications. Staley allegedly “observed victims personally,” including visiting young girls at Epstein’s apartments, yet continued to champion the lucrative account internally.

Settlement: $290 million to victims (2023), $75 million to U.S. Virgin Islands (2023)


2. DEUTSCHE BANK

The Post-Conviction Lifeline (2013โ€“2018)

After JPMorgan finally severed ties in 2013โ€”only after internal compliance officers raised alarms that were ignored for yearsโ€”Deutsche Bank eagerly stepped in to service Epstein’s accounts. This occurred after Epstein’s 2008 conviction and registration as a sex offender, at a time when any legitimate financial institution should have recognized the existential risk.

Deutsche Bank maintained the relationship until 2018, processing transactions that included:

  • Payments to Ghislaine Maxwell totaling $30.7 million, including over $7 million for a helicopter used to transport victims to Epstein’s private island
  • Wire transfers to models and “assistants” who were later identified as victims
  • Large cash withdrawals that bank compliance officers flagged but executives approved

Settlement: $75 million to victims (2023), following a $150 million regulatory fine by New York State (2020)

The bank’s official statement: “We acknowledge our error of onboarding Epstein in 2013 and the weaknesses in our processes.”


3. BANK OF AMERICA

The Leon Black Connection

Recent investigations have revealed Bank of America’s central role in processing $170 million in payments from billionaire Leon Black to Epstein between 2012 and 2017โ€”payments now acknowledged to have partially funded Epstein’s sex trafficking operations in the U.S. Virgin Islands.

According to a March 2025 Senate Finance Committee letter:

  • Bank of America filed only two suspicious activity reports covering these transactions, filed years after the fact
  • The bank processed the $170 million “without asking for information as to the nature of the transactions”
  • The SARs were filed seven years after the transactions began and eight months after Epstein’s 2019 arrest on federal sex trafficking charges

Black, co-founder of Apollo Global Management, paid Epstein at an annualized rate of $23โ€“26 million for purported “tax and estate planning advice”โ€”compensation exceeding the median CEO pay for Fortune 500 companies, for services provided by a college dropout with no accounting or legal credentials.

In January 2023, Black paid $62.5 million to settle claims from the U.S. Virgin Islands, with the settlement explicitly stating: “Jeffrey Epstein used the money Black paid him to partially fund his operations in the Virgin Islands.” The settlement granted Black criminal immunity for himself, his attorneys, and his agents.


4. BEAR STEARNS (Defunct)

The Origin Story (1976โ€“1981)

Epstein’s Wall Street career began at Bear Stearns in 1976, where he rose from junior assistant to limited partner before his 1981 departure. The connections formed here would prove enduring:

  • Epstein later chaired Liquid Funding Ltd., a Bermuda-registered entity partially owned by Bear Stearns from 2000โ€“2007, loaded with mortgage-backed securities and collateralized loan obligations
  • The Paradise Papers reveal Epstein utilized Appleby, the offshore services provider, to navigate “the secretive and low-tax world of offshore finance”
  • Bear Stearns’ 2008 collapseโ€”triggered by exposure to the same toxic assets Epstein’s vehicle tradedโ€”eliminated a potential source of institutional memory regarding his early financial activities

5. ADDITIONAL FINANCIAL ENTITIES

Highbridge Capital Management

  • Glenn Dubin’s hedge fund paid Epstein $15 million for introducing the firm to JPMorgan Chase, which acquired a majority stake for $1.3 billion in 2004
  • This single transaction generated $127 million in revenues for Epstein in 2004, his best year on record

Financial Trust Company / Southern Trust Company

  • Epstein’s own Virgin Islands-based financial vehicles, established in 1998 and 2011 respectively
  • Used to pay Maxwell and manage the “economic development program” that saved Epstein $300 million in taxes between 1999โ€“2018
  • One account used to pay Maxwell had previously been flagged for sex trafficking activity

Honeycomb Partners & TD Bank

  • According to Wall Street Journal reporting, these firms maintained ties with Epstein during various phases of his operations

THE CLIENTS: BILLIONAIRES WHO FUELED THE MACHINE

Epstein’s financial network relied on a small circle of ultra-wealthy clients who provided the capital that sustained his criminal enterprise:ClientFirm/RolePayments to EpsteinStatusLeslie Wexner L Brands (Victoria’s Secret, Bath & Body Works) $200+ million (1991โ€“2007) Denied knowledge of crimes; gave Epstein power of attorney Leon Black Apollo Global Management $170 million (2012โ€“2017) Settled for $62.5M; granted criminal immunity in USVI Elizabeth Johnson Johnson & Johnson heiress Undisclosed Deceased 2017 Glenn Dubin Highbridge Capital Management $15 million (introducer fee) No charges filed


THE COMPLIANCE BREAKDOWN: How Banks Failed

The Epstein case represents a catastrophic failure of the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) framework, which mandates that financial institutions file Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) within 60 days of detecting potentially criminal transactions.

Key systemic failures identified:

  1. Delayed Reporting: Banks filed SARs years after detecting suspicious activity, if at all
  2. Executive Override: Compliance officers’ concerns were routinely overridden by senior executives attracted to Epstein’s lucrative accounts
  3. Retroactive Compliance: JPMorgan filed SARs covering 300x more transactions after Epstein’s death than during his lifetime
  4. Client Confidentiality Over Public Safety: Banks prioritized relationships with billionaires like Black over their legal obligations to report potential trafficking

As Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) stated in his March 2025 investigation: “Bank executives tuned out compliance officers who were alarmed by Epstein’s transactions, seemingly withheld evidence of potential money laundering, and coached Epstein on how to obscure suspiciously large cash withdrawals. This goes beyond a total compliance breakdown.”


THE UNANSWERED QUESTIONS

Despite the document releases, critical questions remain:

1. Where is the rest of the money?
The $1.5 billion in flagged transactions represents only what banks voluntarily reported. The true scope of Epstein’s financial network remains unknown.

2. Why no criminal charges against banks?
JPMorgan, Deutsche Bank, and Bank of America have paid hundreds of millions in civil settlements but faced no criminal prosecution for potential money laundering or complicity in sex trafficking.

3. What about the “client list”?
While Attorney General Pam Bondi claimed in February 2025 that a “client list” was “sitting on my desk,” FBI officials have testified under oath that no such comprehensive list was found. The “black books” that do existโ€”contact directories compiled by Ghislaine Maxwellโ€”contain 1,731 names but are described by investigators as “red herrings” rather than evidence of criminal participation.

4. Who else was financed by Black’s $170 million?
The admission that Black’s payments funded Epstein’s Virgin Islands operations raises the question: which other billionaires’ money sustained the network?

5. Why is Treasury Secretary Bessent refusing to release records?
Senator Wyden has identified Secretary Scott Bessent as part of “the Epstein coverup” for refusing to produce Treasury Department files containing thousands of bank records, despite Congressional demands.


๐Ÿ” EXCLUSIVE INTELLIGENCE

This public analysis represents only a fraction of the financial documentation available. For subscribers to Patreon.com/berndpulch, the following deep-dive materials are available:

  • Complete JPMorgan email archive between Epstein and Jes Staley (redacted portions)
  • Deutsche Bank internal compliance memos showing executive override of SAR filings
  • Leon Black payment schedules and correspondence with Epstein regarding “tax planning”
  • Offshore entity structures mapped through Paradise Papers connections
  • Updated victim settlement documents and non-prosecution agreements
  • Congressional hearing transcripts with FBI Director Patel and Treasury officials

Note: Due to recent hack/sabotage attacks targeting our previous Patreon infrastructure, we are also launching Patron’s Vaultโ€”an ultra-secure, independent membership platform directly integrated into berndpulch.org. To join the waiting list for enhanced security features and direct document access, email office@berndpulch.org with subject line “Patron’s Vault Waiting List.”


CONCLUSION: The Architecture of Impunity

The Epstein financial network reveals a disturbing truth about modern capitalism: that the infrastructure of global finance can be hijacked to sustain criminal enterprises, and that institutional safeguards designed to prevent exactly this outcome can be neutralized by the promise of fees from billionaires.

As the House Oversight Committee continues its investigationโ€”and as the Trump administration faces pressure to release remaining documentsโ€”the focus must shift from Epstein as an individual aberration to the systemic conditions that enabled his crimes. The banks that serviced him, the billionaires who paid him, and the regulators who failed to intervene all remain active in the financial system today.

The $1.5 billion is accounted for. The full costโ€”in human suffering and institutional credibilityโ€”remains incalculable.


DOCUMENTATION SOURCES:

  • Senate Finance Committee Democratic Staff Memorandum (November 2025)
  • House Judiciary Committee Letter to Bank of America (October 2025)
  • U.S. Virgin Islands v. JPMorgan Chase & Co. settlement documents
  • Dechert LLP investigation into Leon Black (Apollo Global Management)
  • Paradise Papers / ICIJ offshore finance documents
  • FBI interview summaries and financial ledgers (Data Sets 9โ€“11, Epstein Files Release)

Tags: Epstein files, financial networks, JPMorgan Chase, Deutsche Bank, Bank of America, Leon Black, Apollo Global Management, Jes Staley, money laundering, sex trafficking, Wall Street corruption, Bank Secrecy Act, suspicious activity reports, offshore finance, U.S. Virgin Islands, Ghislaine Maxwell, compliance failure

Bernd Pulch (M.A.) is a forensic expert, founder of Aristotle AI, entrepreneur, political commentator, satirist, and investigative journalist covering lawfare, media control, investment, real estate, and geopolitics. His work examines how legal systems are weaponized, how capital flows shape policy, how artificial intelligence concentrates power, and what democracy loses when courts and markets become battlefields.

Full bio โ†’

Support the investigation โ†’

The International Consortium of Investigative Journalists: OECDโ€™s plan to end bank secrecy

Become a Patron!
True Information is the most valuable resource and we ask you to give back.

By Hamish Boland-Rudder

Despite coming with news that more than โ‚ฌ37 billion worth of hidden wealth has been revealed in transparency drives, the announcement of a new financial information exchange scheme was greeted with skepticism by activist groups this week.

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) published full details of its global Standard for Automatic Exchange of Financial Account Information in Tax Matters on Monday, which has been under development for months as part of an international drive for more transparency in the banking sector.

The standard provides a framework for governments to obtain detailed account information from their financial institutions and share it annually with other jurisdictions.

It would include sharing information about who owns the account, and the amount of money in the account, to help governments fight tax fraud and evasion.

โ€œ[This] launch moves us closer to a world in which tax cheats have nowhere left to hide,โ€ said OECD Secretary-General Angel Gurria in a statement.

The OECD said more than 65 countries and jurisdictions, including Switzerland, Luxembourg and Singapore, have already publicly committed to implementation of the new standard, with many looking to have structures in place by 2017. But other financial centers, such as Dubai and Panama have indicated they will resist any global push for greater transparency.

And the response so far from transparency activist groups has been mixed at best, as a number questioned the OECDโ€™s commitment to including developing nations in the framework.

While Global Financial Integrityโ€™s Heather Lowe welcomed the plan as a โ€œsuccessful and important step forwardโ€ she said the โ€œreal test will be whether the standards create a functioning and effective system โ€ฆ and whether that system is truly global, with low income countries permitted and willing to participate.โ€

The Tax Justice Network went a step further in their criticism of the OECDโ€™s standard, and accused the organization of missing a โ€œgolden opportunity to make a real dent in the fight against corruption and tax evasion.โ€

โ€œYet again, the OECD has flunked an opportunity to rid the world of the curse of tax havenry,โ€ said Tax Justice Networkโ€™s Markus Meinzer in a statement.

One of their primary criticisms is that developing countries will be forced to collect and provide information โ€“ a process that can be prohibitively costly and difficult โ€“ in order to take part in the scheme.

Tax havens, on the other hand, will have to provide information but can elect not to receive any in return.

โ€œThis does not reflect well on an organization whose membership includes so many of the world-leading tax havens,โ€ Meinzer said.

The Financial Transparency Coalition was scathing in its analysis, attacking not only a perceived disregard of developing countries, but also the very publication and cost of the OECDโ€™s report itself.

โ€œAccessing the document is a perfect illustration of why this process needs to include low income countries from the start; it costs $73 to download the documentโ€”not an insignificant sum for a cash-strapped government, and a prohibitive amount for a citizen watchdog group,โ€ said Porter McConnell, Manager of the Financial Transparency Coalition.

โ€œItโ€™s hardly a convincing sign that the automatic exchange standard is โ€˜ready for implementationโ€™ or open to everyone.โ€

British aid organization Christian Aid was similarly unimpressed, and said the standard as it currently reads not only opened a number of loopholes for tax havens to exploit (including unequal standards for how information is shared), but also neglected to include mechanisms that would make the process easier to implement in developing nations.

โ€œSince the move to automatic information exchange began we have heard rumors that some offshore centers are focusing their attentions on developing countries, knowing that they will be/can be excluded from such developments, and so provide a source of continued business profiting from tax evasion,โ€ said Christian Aidโ€™s economic adviser Joseph Stead.

As part of the publication of the standard, OECD released analysis which found more than 500,000 taxpayers from around the world have voluntarily disclosed hidden income and wealth to their relevant national tax authority since 2009, often taking advantage of reduced penalties to taxpayers who admitted having overseas accounts. The OECD said voluntary disclosure schemes have helped countries identify more than โ‚ฌ37 billion in assets hidden overseas.

The information exchange standard has been released with a call for public comment to be submitted to the OECD by September 12. The standard will then be presented to the G20 Finance Ministers meeting in Australia in late September ahead of the full G20 Summit in November.

Subscribe to The ICIJ Global Muckraker by email or get the RSS feed

Despite coming with news that more than โ‚ฌ37 billion worth of hidden wealth has been revealed in transparency drives, the announcement of a new financial information exchange scheme was greeted with skepticism by activist groups this week.

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) published full details of its global Standard for Automatic Exchange of Financial Account Information in Tax Matters on Monday, which has been under development for months as part of an international drive for more transparency in the banking sector.

The standard provides a framework for governments to obtain detailed account information from their financial institutions and share it annually with other jurisdictions.

It would include sharing information about who owns the account, and the amount of money in the account, to help governments fight tax fraud and evasion.

โ€œ[This] launch moves us closer to a world in which tax cheats have nowhere left to hide,โ€ said OECD Secretary-General Angel Gurria in a statement.

The OECD said more than 65 countries and jurisdictions, including Switzerland, Luxembourg and Singapore, have already publicly committed to implementation of the new standard, with many looking to have structures in place by 2017. But other financial centers, such as Dubai and Panama have indicated they will resist any global push for greater transparency.

And the response so far from transparency activist groups has been mixed at best, as a number questioned the OECDโ€™s commitment to including developing nations in the framework.

While Global Financial Integrityโ€™s Heather Lowe welcomed the plan as a โ€œsuccessful and important step forwardโ€ she said the โ€œreal test will be whether the standards create a functioning and effective system โ€ฆ and whether that system is truly global, with low income countries permitted and willing to participate.โ€

The Tax Justice Network went a step further in their criticism of the OECDโ€™s standard, and accused the organization of missing a โ€œgolden opportunity to make a real dent in the fight against corruption and tax evasion.โ€

โ€œYet again, the OECD has flunked an opportunity to rid the world of the curse of tax havenry,โ€ said Tax Justice Networkโ€™s Markus Meinzer in a statement.

One of their primary criticisms is that developing countries will be forced to collect and provide information โ€“ a process that can be prohibitively costly and difficult โ€“ in order to take part in the scheme.

Tax havens, on the other hand, will have to provide information but can elect not to receive any in return.

โ€œThis does not reflect well on an organization whose membership includes so many of the world-leading tax havens,โ€ Meinzer said.

The Financial Transparency Coalition was scathing in its analysis, attacking not only a perceived disregard of developing countries, but also the very publication and cost of the OECDโ€™s report itself.

โ€œAccessing the document is a perfect illustration of why this process needs to include low income countries from the start; it costs $73 to download the documentโ€”not an insignificant sum for a cash-strapped government, and a prohibitive amount for a citizen watchdog group,โ€ said Porter McConnell, Manager of the Financial Transparency Coalition.

โ€œItโ€™s hardly a convincing sign that the automatic exchange standard is โ€˜ready for implementationโ€™ or open to everyone.โ€

British aid organization Christian Aid was similarly unimpressed, and said the standard as it currently reads not only opened a number of loopholes for tax havens to exploit (including unequal standards for how information is shared), but also neglected to include mechanisms that would make the process easier to implement in developing nations.

โ€œSince the move to automatic information exchange began we have heard rumors that some offshore centers are focusing their attentions on developing countries, knowing that they will be/can be excluded from such developments, and so provide a source of continued business profiting from tax evasion,โ€ said Christian Aidโ€™s economic adviser Joseph Stead.

As part of the publication of the standard, OECD released analysis which found more than 500,000 taxpayers from around the world have voluntarily disclosed hidden income and wealth to their relevant national tax authority since 2009, often taking advantage of reduced penalties to taxpayers who admitted having overseas accounts. The OECD said voluntary disclosure schemes have helped countries identify more than โ‚ฌ37 billion in assets hidden overseas.

The information exchange standard has been released with a call for public comment to be submitted to the OECD by September 12. The standard will then be presented to the G20 Finance Ministers meeting in Australia in late September ahead of the full G20 Summit in November.

Subscribe to The ICIJ Global Muckraker by email or get the RSS feed

TOP-SECRET – Electronic Filing of Bank Secrecy Act Reports

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 180 (Friday, September 16, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57799-57801]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-23841]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Financial Crimes Enforcement Network

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposal That
Electronic Filing of Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) Reports Be Required;
Comment Request

AGENCY: Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), Treasury.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: FinCEN is proposing to require electronic filing of certain
Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) reports not later than June 30, 2012. This
requirement will significantly enhance the quality of our electronic
data, improve our analytic capabilities in supporting law enforcement
requirements and result in significant reduction in real costs to the
United States Government and ultimately to U.S. taxpayers.
Specifically, we propose mandatory electronic submission of all BSA
reports excluding the Report of International Transportation of
Currency or Monetary Instruments (CMIR).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ All CMIRs are filed with the Department of Homeland
Security's Customs and Border Protection (CBP) at the port of entry/
exit or mailed to the Commissioner of Customs in Washington, DC.
There are no electronic filing capabilities at the ports. A CBP
contractor keys the data on the completed form into a data tape that
is electronically uploaded to the BSA database. FinCEN receives no
paper filed CMIRs.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES: Comments should be submitted on or before November 15, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be submitted to: Regulatory Policy
and Programs Division, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, Department
of the Treasury, P.O. Box 39, Vienna, Virginia 22183, Attention: PRA
Comments--BSA Required Electronic Filing. BSA Required Electronic
Filing comments also may be submitted by electronic mail to the
following Internet address: regcomments@fincen.gov, with the caption,
``Attention: BSA Required Electronic Filing,'' in the body of the text.
    Inspection of comments. Comments may be inspected, between 10 a.m.
and 4 p.m., in the FinCEN reading room in Vienna, VA. Persons wishing
to inspect the comments submitted must request an appointment with the
Disclosure Officer by telephoning (703) 905-5034 (not a toll free
call).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The FinCEN Regulatory Helpline at 800-
949-2732, select option 7.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: Bank Secrecy Act, Reporting Forms, (31 CFR chapter X).
    Abstract: The statute generally referred to as the ``Bank Secrecy
Act,'' Titles I and II of Public Law 91-508, as amended, codified at 12
U.S.C. 1829b, 12 U.S.C. 1951-1959, and 31 U.S.C. 5311-5332, authorizes
the Secretary of the Treasury (Secretary), inter alia, to require
financial institutions to file reports that are determined to have a
high degree of usefulness in criminal, tax, and regulatory matters, or
in the conduct of intelligence or counter-intelligence activities to
protect against international terrorism, and to implement counter-money
laundering programs and compliance procedures.\2\ Regulations
implementing Title II of the BSA appear at 31 CFR Chapter X. The
authority of the Secretary to administer the BSA has been delegated to
the Director of FinCEN.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Language expanding the scope of the BSA to intelligence or
counter-intelligence activities to protect against international
terrorism was added by Section 358 of the Uniting and Strengthening
America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and
Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (the USA PATRIOT Act), Public Law
107-56.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Secretary was granted authority with the enactment of Title 31
U.S.C., to require financial institutions and other persons to file
various BSA reports. The information collected on the reports is
required to be provided pursuant to Title 31 U.S.C., as implemented by
FinCEN regulations found throughout 31 CFR chapter X. The information
collected pursuant to this authority is made available to appropriate
agencies and organizations as disclosed in FinCEN's Privacy Act System
of Records Notice.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Treasury Department bureaus such as FinCEN renew their
System of Records Notices every three years unless there is cause to
amend them more frequently. FinCEN's System of Records Notice was
most recently published at 73 FR 42405, 42407-9 (July 21, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Current Action: In support of Treasury's paperless initiative and
efforts to make the government operations more efficient, FinCEN has
chosen to mandate electronic filing of certain BSA reports effective
June 30, 2012.
    This requirement will significantly enhance the quality of our
electronic data, improve our analytic capabilities in supporting law
enforcement requirements, and result in a significant reduction in real
costs to the U.S. government and ultimately to U.S. taxpayers.
Specifically, we propose to make mandatory the electronic submission of
all BSA reports excluding the CMIR.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See supra note 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Background: Since October 2002, FinCEN has provided financial
institutions with the capability of electronically filing BSA reports
through its system called BSA E-Filing. Effective August 2011, the
system was expanded to support individuals filing the Report of Foreign
Bank and Financial Accounts (FBAR) report. BSA E-Filing is a secure,
Web-based electronic filing system. It is a flexible solution for
financial institutions or individuals, whether they file one BSA report
or thousands. BSA E-Filing is an accessible service that filers can
access by using their existing internet connections regardless of
connection speed. In addition, it is designed to minimize filing errors
and provide enhanced feedback to filing institutions or individuals,
thereby providing a significant improvement in data quality.
    BSA E-Filing, which is provided free of charge, features
streamlined BSA information submission; faster routing of information
to law enforcement; greater data security and privacy compared with
paper forms; long-term

[[Page 57800]]

cost savings to institutions, individuals, and the government; and
insures compatibility with future versions of BSA reports.
    In addition, BSA E-Filing offers the following features not
available on paper:
     Electronic notification of submissions, receipt of
submission, and errors, warnings, and alerts;
     Batch validation;
     Acknowledgement that a currency transaction report (CTR)
and or suspicious activity report (SAR) was filed;
     Feedback reports to filers;
     Faster receipt for money services businesses of
registration acknowledgement letter;
     Ability to send and receive secure messages;
     Use of Adobe forms that allows users to create templates,
reducing data entry but still providing for printing paper copies if
the filer wants to use a paper copy for its internal review and
approval processes;
     Ability for supervisory users to assign system roles to
their staff; and
     Availability of helpful training materials.
    In 2010, we initiated a complete redesign and rebuilding of a new
system-of-record that significantly enhances FinCEN's current technical
capabilities to receive, process, share, and store BSA data. A
significant part of this upgrade was the implementation of state-of-
the-art electronic reporting or information collection tools. As of
July 1, 2011, over 84% of BSA reports are filed electronically with
FinCEN.\5\ FinCEN annually measures customer satisfaction with BSA E-
Filing and has a performance goal of at least 90% satisfaction; in
Fiscal Year 2010, 96% of customers were satisfied with BSA E-Filing.\6\
To enroll with BSA E-Filing financial institutions or individuals go to
http://bsaefiling.fincen.treas.gov/main.html and follow four easy
steps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ As of July 2011, there are over 12,000 registered e-filers.
Of the 1250 major filers, 659 are currently e-filing. FinCEN
anticipates that many current paper filers will convert to e-file
when the new BSA E-Filing system becomes available.
    \6\ See FinCEN's 2010 Annual Report, available at
http://www.fincen.gov/news_room/rp/files/annual_report_fy2010.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a result of the 2010 initiative, FinCEN is in the process of
fielding a new BSA Collection, Processing, and Analytic system. The new
system, which includes significant e-filing improvements, is designed
to support the most efficient state-of-the-art electronic filing. The
database will accept XML-based dynamic reports as well as certain other
file formats. The various file formats \7\ will be provided to permit
integration into in-house systems or for use by service providers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The XML Schema, ACSII, and the electronic file
specifications will be provided at no cost to filers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All filings (batch, computer-to-computer, and discrete) will be
initiated through the BSA E-Filing system \8\ using current
registration and log-in procedures. Although batch and computer-to-
computer filing processes will remain unchanged, the file format will
change to match the database. Batch and computer-to-computer filers
will file reports, which are based on an electronic file specification
that will be provided free of charge. Discrete filings (the replacement
for submitting a single paper report) will be based on Adobe LiveCycle
Designer ES dynamic forms. The discrete function is available for all
small business report filers (as well as individuals). The discrete
filing function will be accessed by logging into the BSA E-Filing
System and entering a pre-approved user ID and password. During log-in
to the discrete filing option, filers will be prompted through a series
of questions.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ BSA E-Filing is a free Web-based service provided by FinCEN.
More information on the filing methods may be accessed at
http://bsaefiling.fincen.treas.gov/main.html.
    \9\ A series of predetermined questions designed to establish
the type of institution and filing in much the same manner as used
in widely accepted income tax filing software.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After log-in, a financial institution filing a report through the
discrete function will answer another set of questions that will
establish a subset of the data fields appropriate to the filer's
specific type of filing institution.
    Today's proposal requiring filers to submit certain BSA reports
electronically using the free FinCEN BSA E-Filing system will provide a
range of benefits. Electronic filing will also facilitate the rapid
dissemination of financial and suspicious activity information in
connection with BSA filings, making information contained in these
filings more readily available to--and more easily searchable by--law
enforcement, the financial regulatory community, and other users of BSA
data. Additionally, the proposal to require certain BSA reports to be
filed electronically will result in a significant reduction in the use
of paper, producing a positive environmental impact. Further, the
implementation of the proposal has the potential to save the government
a few million dollars per year through the reduction of expenditures
associated with current paper processing, in particular the physical
intake and sorting of incoming reports, and the electronic keying of
reported information into the database.
    Security: Mandatory electronic filing will provide increased
security not available with paper filings. At the present time, all
paper reports are mailed to the IRS Enterprise Computing Center--
Detroit (ECC-D) as unclassified mail with no special handling via the
U.S. Postal Service system. On occasion, mailed paper reports have been
delayed, and in some cases damaged beyond readability. A financial
institution may not discover that a report was not received by ECC-D
until many months after the report was due.\10\ For example, problems
with delivery of reports may not be discovered until the financial
institution is examined by its regulator, and the regulator compares a
list of the reports that are posted to the database against the
institution's official files. The BSA E-Filing System is a secure 128-
bit single socket layer protected Web-based filing system. Reports
received are acknowledged and any noted errors are reported back to the
filer. This process provides the filer with a record that the required
filing was received, as well as suggestions on how to improve the
accuracy of their future reports. Reports originated by the filer are
posted securely directly to the database, thereby significantly
reducing or eliminating possibility of data compromise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The missing report becomes more critical if it was
reporting suspicious activity--especially when relating to terrorist
financing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Filer Impact Assessment

    a. Depository institutions: Based on information available we
believe this change in filing procedures will have minimal impact on
depository institutions. All depository institutions are currently
required to file quarterly call or thrift financial reports with their
regulator electronically through a Web-based portal provided by the
appropriate federal regulator. This same electronic connectivity may be
used to file BSA reports with FinCEN by logging in to the BSA E-Filing
System Web-based portal.
    b. Broker-Dealers, Future-Commission Merchants (FCMs), Introducing
Brokers in Commodities (IB-Cs), and Mutual Funds: \11\ Based on
information available we believe this change in filing procedures will
have minimal impact on these filing institutions. This group is highly
automated and enjoys robust electronic buying and selling systems with
sophisticated processing

[[Page 57801]]

and reporting systems.\12\ Currently the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) mandates electronic filing,\13\ as does the Commodity
Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ FinCEN is considering adding a SAR reporting requirement to
Investment Adviser's (IA's) registered with the SEC. Mandatory e-
filing will have minimum impact on this group.
    \12\ Currently both the SEC and the CFTC require electronic
reporting, The SEC through the EDGAR system and the CFTC through the
NFC Windjammer and Easy File systems.
    \13\ See http://www.sec.gov/info/edgar/regoverview.htm.
    \14\ For financial institutions subject to CFTC oversight See
NFA Electronic Filings at
http://www.nfa.futures.org/NFA-electronic-filings/index.HTML.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    c. Insurance companies: Based on information available we believe
this change in filing procedures will have minimal impact on these
institutions. This group is highly automated.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See the National Insurance Producer Registry (NIPR) at
http://www.nipr.com/. NIPR is a unique public-private partnership
that supports the work of the states and the National Association of
Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) in making the producer-licensing
process more cost-effective, streamlined and uniform for the benefit
of regulators, the insurance industry and the consumers they protect
and serve.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    d. Casinos and Card Clubs: \16\ Based on information available we
believe this change in filing procedures will have minimal impact on
these institutions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Casinos and Card Clubs with gross annual gaming revenues in
excess of $1 million (see 31 CFR1010.100 (t)(5)(ii) and (6)(ii)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    e. Money Services Businesses (MSBs): Information gained from a
review of the MSB filings of the currency transaction report (CTR),
SAR, and Registration of Money Services Business (RMSB) forms indicates
that some impact to this group can be expected. Information in trade
journals and other publications, along with informal comments from the
Internal Revenue Service Small Business/Self Employed, indicate that
most filers have Internet connectivity. MSBs routinely accept and
process credit card transactions requiring automated communications
with the approving card center. They also routinely place orders for
goods and services through the Internet and electronically access bill
paying services. Additionally, basic Internet access can be obtained
through a simple inexpensive dial-up connection or at professional
external Internet facilities such as service providers for those MSBs
without Internet connectivity. Lastly, FinCEN has included provisions
for requesting a hardship exception in this notice in case unforeseen
situations arise.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Filer impact paragraph ``g.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    f. Service Providers: There is a network of third-party service
providers with which financial institutions may contract to provide
electronic filing services to the BSA E-Filing System. FinCEN believes
this group to be highly automated and many are already using the BSA E-
Filing System. We do not anticipate that this proposal will have an
impact on this group.
    g. Small businesses: \18\ In support of small businesses, FinCEN's
Office of Compliance will provide a temporary hardship exemption
capability. A small business may request, and may be granted, an
emergency extension of up to one year if it can document a sufficiently
serious problem that prevents compliance with the new filing
requirements. The approved extension will be effective for one year
from the effective date of this notice.\19\ A hardship request based
solely on a lack of Internet connectivity or a business decision to
restrict Internet connectivity will not be considered adequate
justification for an extension.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See the Small Business Administration's (SBA) Web site
http://www.sba.gov/content/what-sbas-definition-small-business-concern
for SBA's definition of a small business concern.
    \19\ Request for emergency extension will be mailed to:
Department of the Treasury, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network,
Attention RPP-CP, PO Box 39, Vienna, VA 22183 or may be e-mailed to:
regcomments@fincen.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    h. Individual filers: Effective August 2011, FinCEN expanded its
support of electronic filing to individuals.\20\ The capability to file
the Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (FBAR Form TD F 90-
22.1) became available and individuals worldwide can sign up to file
their individual FBAR's by accessing the FinCEN E-Filing Web site.
Based on new applications to date, there is no indication of any issues
with individuals using this new capability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See page 3 Background.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    Type of Review: Review of a new proposal to mandate the electronic
filing of BSA reports.
    Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profit and non-profit
institutions.
    Frequency: As required.
    Estimated Burden: Effective with the FinCEN IT Modernization, BSA
reporting will be supported by seven BSA reports.\21\ The burden for
electronic filing and recordkeeping of each BSA report is reflected in
the OMB approved burden \22\ for each of these reports. The non-
reporting recordkeeping burden is reflected separately.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ BSA-SAR, BSA-CTR, Designation Of Exempt Person, CMIR, RMSB,
Foreign Bank Account Report, and the Report of Cash Over $10,000
Received in a Trade or Business (Form 8300).
    \22\ See OMB Control Numbers 1506-0065, 1506-0064, 1506-0009,
1506-0013, 1506-0014, 1506-0018.
    \23\ See OMB Control Numbers 1506-0051 through 1506-0059.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Estimated number of respondents for all reports = 74,900.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ All filers subject to BSA reporting requirements excluding
CMIR. See supra note 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Estimated Total Annual Responses for all reports = 16,172,770.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours = 20,874,761.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Includes all reporting and recordkeeping burden associated
with filing BSA reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of
information displays a valid OMB control number. Records required to be
retained pursuant to the BSA must be retained for five years.

Request for Comments

    Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized
and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will
become a matter of public record. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether
the collection of information only by electronic means is necessary for
the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including
whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy
of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of
information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of
the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the
collection of information on respondents (filers), including through
the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of
information technology; (e) the practicality of utilizing external
Internet facilities or service providers to occasionally file BSA
reports, (f) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of
operation, maintenance, or purchase of services to provide information
by filers that currently do not have Internet access, and (g) the
enhanced security of sensitive information and significant cost savings
of electronic filing.

    Dated: September 13, 2011.
James H. Freis, Jr.,
Director, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network.
[FR Doc. 2011-23841 Filed 9-15-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-02-P