JPMorgan debanked me over Bitcoin and Epstein: Jack Mallers

JPMorgan cut ties with Strike CEO Jack Mallers, who said that his advocacy of Bitcoin and criticism of Jeffrey Epstein was behind it.

• Strike CEO Jack Mallers claims JPMorgan debanked without a given reason
• Mallers called out JPMorgan over its alleged ties with Epstein
• Under current legislation, banks are still held liable for their clients criminal activity

Despite significant regulatory and political changes, debanking remains a problem for crypto firms. On Monday, November 24, Mallers revealed that JPMorgan Chase closed his accounts without warning, citing suspicious activity.

However, Mallers claims that the reason for his debanking was political.

Mallers shared a copy of the JPMorgan Chase statement dated September 22. The statement cited “concerning activity” in one of Mallers accounts. These types of transactions are a risk for the bank under the U.S. Bank Secrecy Act.

According to Mallers, bank representatives stated they were not allowed to provide him with more information. What is more, he highlighted their hypocrisy from the bank that offered its services, and even special treatment, to notorious sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein.

“I don‘t care what Epstein’s banker thinks about Bitcoin being used for bad things,” Mallers said in an X post.

Did JPMorgan debank over Epstein ties？

Mallers also cited a recent report by U.S. Senator Ron Wyden, highlighting Jeffrey Epstein‘s ties to the bank. The report alleges that the top JPMorgan Chase executives enabled Epstein’s sex trafficking operation and were in constant contact with the disgraced billionaire. One executive even instructed Epstein on how to sanitize his large cash withdrawals.

Still, for most other customers, those without privileged access, debanking remains an ongoing concern. Under the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970, banks remain liable for illicit transactions that happen under their watch. This is despite the recent executive order by President Donald Trump that launched an inquiry into the issue. Under current legislation, banks remain extremely cautious about activities that could expose them to liability.