Epstein Secrets

FOR PUBLICATION FOR UPLOAD IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN FINANCIAL TRUST COMPANY, INC. AND JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, Plaintiffs, v. CITIBANK, N.A. AND CITIGROUP, INC. d/b/a "CITIGROUP," Defendants. ATTORNEYS: Maria Tankenson Hodge, Esq. Hodge & Francois St

ill grant leave for the plaintiffs to amend their pleadings. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In their amended complaint, Jeffrey E. Epstein ("Epstein") and Financial Trust Company, Inc. ("FTC"] [collectively "plaintiffs"] allege that Citibank, N.A. ("Citibank") and Citigroup, Inc. ["Citigroup"]

AND ST. JOHN FINANCIAL TRUST COMPANY, INC. AND JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, Plaintiffs, v. CITIBANK, N.A. AND CI

AND ST. JOHN FINANCIAL TRUST COMPANY, INC. AND JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, Plaintiffs, v. CITIBANK, N.A. AND CIT

York Attorney General to investigate and prosecute violations of the Act. The Martin Act does not, however, provide for a private cause of action. See Nairobi Holdings Ltd. v. Brown Bros. Harriman & Co., Civ. No. 2002-1230, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16995 at *10 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 10, 2002) ("(Ilt is well established that the

er, shall have THIRTY DAYS within which to file an amended complaint with respect to these counts. FOOTNOTES 1. Sometime in 2000, Davison informed Epstein about a second, similar investment fund to be managed by Mass Mutual [the "Mass Mutual Fund']. On June 15, 2000, Epstein borrowed an additional $10

w York Attorney General to investigate and prosecute violations of the Act. The Martin Act does not, however, provide for a private cause of action. See Nairobi Holdings Ltd. v. Brown Bros. Harriman & Co., Civ. No.2002-1230, 2002 WL 31027550, '4, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16995 at *10 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 10, 2002) Cult is well es

[the "Mass Mutual Fund"]. On June 15, 2000, Epstein borrowed an additional $10 million from Citibank, that Epstein agreed to invest in the Mass Mutual Fund. (Mem. Of Law in Support of Defs.' Mot. To D

w York Attorney General to investigate and prosecute violations of the Act. The Martin Act does not, however, provide for a private cause of action. See Nairobi Holdings Ltd. v. Brown Bros. Harriman & Co., Civ. No.2002-1230, 2002 WL 31027550, '4, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16995 at 10 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 10, 2002) ("(in is well es