What specific transactions did JPMorgan process for Epstein that involved Alfa Bank, Sberbank or FCB according to Senate inquiries?
Executive summary
Senate investigators have asked JPMorgan for a transaction-level list of all wires and payments tied to Jeffrey Epstein that used correspondent accounts at Russia’s Sberbank, Alfa Bank and First Commercial Bank (FCB), and unsealed court filings show Epstein accounts were linked to Alfa Bank and Sberbank and that JPMorgan later filed SARs flagging more than $1 billion in Epstein-related flows spanning 2003–2019 [1] [2] [3]. However, the publicly available Senate materials and the unsealed court records cited by Democratic staff do not produce a published, item‑by‑item list in the public record that names each specific transaction routed through Sberbank, Alfa Bank or FCB [1] trafficking-operation" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">[4] [2].
1. The Senate’s explicit question: “Provide the list”
Senator Ron Wyden’s inquiry to JPMorgan asked the bank to “provide a list of all transactions JPMC processed for Epstein’s accounts using foreign correspondent bank accounts at the following Russian banks: Sberbank, Alfa Bank and FCB,” signaling that the committee seeks granular, correspondent‑level routing information from the bank’s records [1] [5]. The request is part of a broader examination of how JPMorgan’s relationship with Epstein persisted despite internal compliance warnings and why the bank delayed filing Suspicious Activity Reports until years after key conduct [1].
2. What the unsealed records actually show in public reporting
Court documents unsealed in late 2025 and summarized by multiple news outlets and the Senate staff memo indicate two Epstein‑linked accounts were “connected” to Russian banks Alfa Bank and Sberbank, and that JPMorgan flagged over $1 billion in suspicious activity tied to Epstein between October 2003 and July 2019 [2] [6] [3]. The Wyden staff analysis and associated press coverage add that, prior to 2019, the bank formally reported only a much smaller dollar amount of flagged activity while retaining Epstein as a client for years [4].
3. What the public record does not provide — transaction‑level identifiers
None of the publicly posted Senate materials, the Wyden staff memorandum, or the media summaries of the unsealed SARs publish the detailed transaction list Wyden has asked JPMorgan to supply; reported items describe account links and aggregate flagged volumes but do not enumerate wire dates, amounts, correspondent account numbers, or counterparty identifiers that would show precisely which wires flowed through Sberbank, Alfa Bank or FCB [1] [4] [2]. That gap is the specific subject of Wyden’s demand: the committee is pressing JPMorgan to produce those granular records that remain, as of the published materials, withheld or unprovided [1].
4. Competing narratives, institutional motives and next steps
Senate Democrats frame the request as needed to understand whether JPMorgan’s correspondent relationships enabled cross‑border movement of funds tied to trafficking and why SARs were not filed promptly; bank spokespeople point to eventual filings and have argued they alerted regulators, while critics say executive overrides and delayed SARs suggest a pattern of protection for Epstein [1] [6] [4]. The public materials show the committee’s probe overlaps with court‑ordered unsealing of documents and with other congressional demands to banks for SARs and transaction histories, but until JPMorgan turns over the detailed correspondent‑level transaction list the precise ledger entries connecting Epstein payments to Sberbank, Alfa Bank or FCB remain unexposed in the public record [1] [7].
Conclusion: Senate inquiries and unsealed documents establish that Epstein accounts had links to Alfa Bank and Sberbank and that JPMorgan ultimately reported more than $1 billion in suspicious Epstein‑related transactions, but the specific, named transactions routed through Sberbank, Alfa Bank or FCB — the wire dates, amounts and correspondent account identifiers Wyden requested — are not published in the available materials and thus are not yet verifiable from the provided sources [2] [3] [1].