Which specific banks appear in court filings connected to Jeffrey Epstein's offshore accounts?
Executive summary
Court filings and newly unsealed documents identify multiple large banks tied to accounts or suspicious transactions linked to Jeffrey Epstein, most prominently JPMorgan Chase (which filed Suspicious Activity Reports), Goldman Sachs and HSBC’s private bank in Switzerland; JPMorgan’s filings alone flagged roughly $1.3 billion (or more than $1 billion) in transactions as suspicious and reported about 4,700 transactions amounting to over $1 billion [1] [2] [3]. Congressional and Senate probes now single out JPMorgan for detailed scrutiny while lawsuits and reporting point to several other global banks that handled Epstein-related accounts [4] [5].
1. Banks named in the court filings: the headline trio
Court filings and the documents unsealed at journalists’ request explicitly list JPMorgan Chase as the bank that filed the Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) and named other institutions; the released SARs and related filings show Epstein had an account at Goldman Sachs and three accounts with HSBC’s private bank in Switzerland [3] [6]. Reporting based on those court documents repeatedly cites Goldman Sachs and HSBC alongside JPMorgan in describing the banking footprint surrounding Epstein [3] [7].
2. JPMorgan’s dual role: filer of SARs and subject of scrutiny
JPMorgan is the bank that filed the SARs which brought many of these account relationships to light; Sen. Ron Wyden’s analysis and other reporting highlight that JPMorgan’s filings described more than $1 billion in suspicious transactions and roughly 4,700 flagged transfers — and the bank has become the focus of congressional and Senate investigations into whether it delayed or underreported suspicious activity [1] [2] [8]. Wyden’s office and Democratic staff memos point to internal JPMorgan communications, executives’ involvement, and questions about why timely action was not taken [9] [8].
3. Goldman Sachs and HSBC: what the filings say and what they don’t
The unsealed documents list a Goldman Sachs account and three HSBC Private Bank (Switzerland) accounts connected to Epstein, but the publicly released reports and SARs do not include dollar amounts or full transactional detail for those specific accounts in the material cited by Reuters and other outlets [3] [6]. Sources confirm the existence of those accounts in filings but make clear the court documents released so far stop short of providing a full financial ledger for Goldman or HSBC within the publicly shared reports [3].
4. Wider banking network and congressional action
Beyond the banks named in the SARs, congressional investigators have cast a wider net, asking major institutions — including JPMorgan, Deutsche Bank, Bank of America and BNY Mellon — for records tied to more than $1.5 billion in suspicious transactions related to Epstein and his associates [4]. The House and Senate activity underscores that the legal record and lawsuits may implicate or at least touch a broader set of banks even where direct account ownership in filings isn’t yet detailed [4].
5. Conflicting perspectives and legal limitations in the public record
Some sources stress systemic compliance failures at JPMorgan over nearly 15 years and suggest executives may have protected Epstein’s access to banking services; others note proving that banks knowingly enabled criminal conduct is legally difficult and that banks have not admitted wrongdoing in many cases [2] [5]. The court filings themselves document accounts and flagged transfers but, as released, do not conclusively map every transaction or assign criminal liability to the banks named [3] [5].
6. What the filings do not show (and what we still don’t know)
Available sources do not mention full transactional breakdowns for the Goldman Sachs or HSBC accounts, nor do they provide comprehensive dollar totals tied specifically to those named bank accounts in the publicly released SAR excerpts [3]. The filings as reported reveal account relationships and volumes flagged by JPMorgan but do not, in the material cited here, prove that Goldman Sachs or HSBC knowingly facilitated criminal acts — that legal question remains the subject of lawsuits and congressional probes [5] [4].
7. Takeaway and why it matters
The unsealed filings place JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs and HSBC at the center of Epstein-related financial documents: JPMorgan as the bank reporting the suspicious activity, Goldman and HSBC as institutions where accounts appear in the court record; congressional and Senate inquiries amplify the stakes by seeking documentary answers about how banks handled hundreds of millions — and at least $1 billion — of flagged transactions [3] [1] [4]. The public record so far documents account links and flagged transfers but leaves open key questions about amounts by bank, internal bank conduct, and potential legal culpability — matters that investigators and ongoing litigation are now trying to resolve [2] [5].