When it involves JPMorgan Chase’s almost 15-year enterprise relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, Jamie Dimon, the financial institution’s longtime chief government, claims to have little firsthand data in regards to the disgraced financier.

During a deposition taken on Friday, Mr. Dimon repeatedly denied assembly Mr. Epstein, or speaking with him, and in addition mentioned he had no recollection of being briefed by his prime lieutenants on the nation’s largest financial institution on certainly one of its most infamous prospects. A redacted transcript of the deposition was launched on Wednesday and reviewed by The New York Times.

Though he mentioned he wished the financial institution had been conscious of Mr. Epstein’s illicit actions, Mr. Dimon mentioned he didn’t recall studying any stories about Mr. Epstein’s 2008 conviction in Florida on a cost of soliciting prostitution from a teenage lady — an offense that pressured him to register as a intercourse offender in a number of locations within the United States. Mr. Dimon mentioned he had barely heard of Mr. Epstein earlier than his July 2019 arrest on federal intercourse trafficking expenses and loss of life by suicide in a New York jail cell a month later.

“I don’t recall knowing anything about Jeffrey Epstein until the stories broke sometime in 2019, and I was surprised that I didn’t even — had never even heard of the guy, pretty much. And how involved he was with so many people,” Mr. Dimon mentioned throughout an all-day deposition taken at JPMorgan’s headquarters in Manhattan.

The deposition is without doubt one of the final to be taken in reference to two lawsuits arising from the Wall Street financial institution’s relationship with Mr. Epstein. A decade after dropping Mr. Epstein as a shopper, the financial institution is now attempting to fend off claims that its prime executives both knew about Mr. Epstein’s lengthy historical past of sexually abusing teenage ladies and younger girls, or appeared the opposite manner.

The two fits, introduced by legal professionals representing Mr. Epstein’s victims and by the federal government of the U.S. Virgin Islands, declare that JPMorgan ignored a number of warnings that Mr. Epstein was utilizing cash to finance illicit sexual actions at his residences in New York, Florida and the Virgin Islands.

Mr. Dimon’s deposition was made public after the financial institution put out a press release following the deposition that mentioned Mr. Dimon “does not recall ever discussing his accounts internally, and was not involved in any decisions about his account.”

Lawyers for the victims pressed Mr. Dimon plenty of instances throughout the deposition in regards to the financial institution’s determination to label Mr. Epstein as a “high-risk client” round 2011. But Mr. Dimon mentioned he wasn’t consulted on the matter. He additionally mentioned he by no means mentioned Mr. Epstein with the previous prime banker James E. Staley — who was Mr. Epstein’s fundamental advocate on the financial institution — or Mary Erdoes, who’s now head of JPMorgan’s asset and wealth administration division.

Ms. Erdoes in a deposition in March mentioned she decided to dismiss Mr. Epstein as a shopper due to considerations about massive money withdrawals from his accounts with the financial institution. She mentioned Mr. Staley’s departure from the financial institution meant Mr. Epstein had no robust advocate arguing for him to stay a shopper.

Mr. Dimon additionally mentioned he didn’t recall the financial institution’s basic counsel on the time, Stephen Cutler, ever discussing Mr. Epstein with him.

In retrospect, Mr. Dimon mentioned, he wished he and others had identified extra about Mr. Epstein’s crimes. He mentioned that the financial institution’s involvement with the intercourse offender ranks as certainly one of its larger reputational hits however that the financial institution shouldn’t be held answerable for Mr. Epstein’s sins.

“I think what happened to these women is atrocious,” he mentioned. “I wouldn’t mind personally apologizing to them, not because we committed the crime. We did not. And not because we believe we’re responsible, but that any potential thing, what little role that we could have eased it or helped catch it quicker or something like that.”