The Epstein Case

A Failure to Impose Consequences on Abusive Behavior

© 2025 by Bill Eddy, LCSW, Esq.

and Ekaterina Ricci, MDR, MLS

Politics aside, the case of Jeffrey Epstein is a powerful example of how setting limits is meaningless unless they are backed up by imposing appropriate consequences. The need for everyone to learn how to set limits and impose consequences on harmful behavior is the core message of our new book SLIC Solutions™ for Conflict: Setting Limits and Imposing Consequences in 2½ Steps. 

In this book we give over 30 examples of Setting Limits and Imposing Consequences (SLIC) in families, at work, in communities, and online. The Epstein case is not discussed in the book, but this article will demonstrate how we can apply the 2½ steps of the SLIC Solutions technique to highlight the tragic failures that occurred legally and financially in this example and some lessons learned.

The 2½ Steps 

As with all of our techniques with High Conflict Institute, we have made SLIC Solutions short and easy to remember under stress. Here are the 2½ steps:

Step 1: Setting Limits – This is the easy part, stating in writing or in person what behavior is undesirable and/or what behavior is desired. This may be your personal limit or may already be established in law or organizational policies.

Step 2: Imposing Consequences – It helps to think ahead about this when you are setting your limits and to consider stating the possible consequence when setting the limit. To assess the appropriateness of your consequences we have 5 questions:

1. 1. Is the consequence proportional to the limit that I have set?
   2. Have I considered both positive and negative consequences?
   3. Is the consequence safe?
   4. Am I ready to enforce my consequence?
   5. Do I need to get help in imposing my consequence?

Then, if the limits are violated, go ahead and impose your consequences.

Step 2½: EAR Statement™ (or Not) – In about half of cases it helps to give a statement that shows Empathy, Attention, and/or Respect (EAR) while setting your limit and while imposing your consequence. This helps to reinforce your connection with the person and motivate positive behavior change. On the other hand, in about half of cases the person receiving the limit may be very manipulative and will use your EAR statement to undermine your consequence. In such cases, it is recommended to avoid an EAR statement and stay focused and firm on imposing your consequence.

Epstein Background

The Jeffrey Epstein case shows how dangerous it is when limits exist but consequences are weak or missing. Laws and regulations already forbid sexual abuse of minors, and financial institutions are supposed to prevent suspicious transactions that could support trafficking. Yet according to public reports and legal findings, in Epstein’s case authorities and banks failed to enforce meaningful consequences, allowing harm to continue for years. This example highlights the critical importance of the SLIC Solutions approach, which provides a framework for not only setting limits but also imposing consequences that truly fit the violation.

The following information is drawn from the Miami Herald newspaper in Florida. By the year 2000, Epstein was paying teenage girls several hundred dollars in cash to come to his house to give him massages, which then became sexual assaults. In 2005, a 14-year-old girl and her parents reported to the police that he molested her. That year, the police began an investigation and discovered evidence that Epstein had several underage girls come to his house. In 2006, local police wanted to charge him and two assistants with multiple counts of unlawful sex acts with a minor. 

However, the Florida State Attorney instead convened a grand jury which, based on one girl’s testimony, returned an indictment of just one count of solicitation of prostitution that did not mention that she was a minor. Frustrated by the State’s minimization of the seriousness of Epstein’s behavior (it had become clear to police that dozens of girls were involved), the local police chief contacted the FBI, which began a larger investigation interviewing potential witnesses and victims from Florida, New York and New Mexico.

The Legal Case

Step 1: Setting Limits 

What were the existing laws (limits) that were violated for which Epstein would be finally charged with violating? In 2008, the U.S. Attorney negotiated a plea deal and Epstein pled guilty to two state charges of “one count of solicitation of prostitution and one count of solicitation of prostitution with a minor under the age of 18.”  With this plea deal, the federal investigation and possible federal charges were dropped, even though by 2008 federal charges could have put him in prison for ten years.

Step 2: Imposing Consequences    

What was the consequence for violating these two state laws? Epstein was sentenced to “18 months in jail, followed by a year of community control or house arrest.” But he was allowed to serve his sentence through work furlough, which means that he was “picked up by his private driver six days a week and transported to an office in West Palm Beach, where he accepts visitors for up to 12 hours a day.” He returned to the “jail” in the evenings to sleep. However, he got released from this “sentence” five months early and was placed on probation for a year. He was supposed to be confined to his Palm Beach home “except to travel to his office in West Palm Beach.” There is evidence that he also visited his New York office and his home in the U.S. Virgin Islands during this time period.

How did this consequence fit with the “5 Questions” that should be asked?

1. Is the consequence proportional to the limit that was set?
   • Clearly not. Since there was a possible 10-year federal prison sentence for this behavior, the consequence was a slap on the hand.
2. Did I consider both positive and negative consequences?
   • When prison sentences are ordered for crimes it is common to shorten the sentence for good behavior in prison. However, in this case it appears that giving him work furlough and letting him off five months early had nothing to do with his behavior.
3. Is the consequence safe?
   • This question is designed to help people avoid endangering themselves or others by the consequence imposed. In this case, the consequence did not protect future girls from being abused.
4. Am I ready to enforce my consequence?
   • The extremely light sentence was easy to enforce. It appears that the authorities were not ready to enforce serious consequences to fit the crimes. 
5. Do I need to get help in imposing my consequence?
   • The county jail and probation were in charge of imposing the consequence. But again, this was easy because of the light sentence.

Step 2½: EAR Statement (or Not)

Apparently, Epstein claimed that all of the sex was consensual and that he believed that all of the girls were over 18. He claimed that he was unfairly targeted as a wealthy man. There is no obvious evidence that the plea deal included statements showing empathy, attention or respect, but it appears likely that this occurred given the extremely light sentence and all of the deference he received as a very wealthy man, at least a multimillionaire. Did they believe him? Apparently, they wanted to.

Outcome

By 2009, it become clear that Epstein has sexually abused hundreds of girls, not just dozens. Over the next ten years, he apparently was unrestrained in his activities with his “jail” sentence behind him. The consequence had zero impact on his behavior and appears to have emboldened him. By 2019, there were many civil and criminal cases building against him, including some that he settled for undisclosed sums. He was finally arrested on his private plane in 2019 but died in jail by apparent suicide.

The Financial Case

The following information is taken from a thorough investigation reported in the New York Times. Epstein was a treasured customer at JPMorgan bank. By 2011, his accounts were worth more than $200 million. He brought in millions of dollars in revenue for the bank, which made him one of their top major money makers. “He helped executives troubleshoot crises and strategize about global opportunities.”

Step 1: Setting Limits

All banks have rules about unusual financial dealings, especially cash dealings, to prevent money laundering and also to prevent human trafficking. They are supposed to set limits on their clients by reporting suspicious dealings. Yet JPMorgan apparently failed to set limits on Epstein over and over again. “Among its many lapses with Epstein, JPMorgan often failed to alert federal watchdogs to transactions that the bank later acknowledged were suspicious. And by opening accounts for young women without meeting them, the bank was missing a well-known hallmark of human traffickers: that they control victims’ interactions with the outside world.” Even during his so-called “jail sentence,” the bank continued to wire money from his accounts to “banks in Russia and Eastern Europe, where young women were being drawn into his sex-trafficking network.” In other words, the bank was supposed to set limits on this kind of behavior but did not even do that.

Step 2: Imposing Consequences

Companies can be criminally charged for money laundering if they “willfully ignore” this behavior by their clients. A JPMorgan bank executive responsible for compliance with such laws became very concerned and told other executives that Epstein should be “exited” from the bank. This would have been a logical consequence for his apparent sex trafficking activities. However, “for more than ten years, bank officials were worried about his numerous wire transfers and cash withdrawals, but JPMorgan ended up processing more than $1 billion in such transactions for him. On at least four occasions over five years, executives in the bank overruled the lower officials objections and kept him on as a client.” 

Why? Apparently “the combination of a thirst for profits and Epstein’s knack for making himself seem indispensable proved potent and hard to kick, the financial equivalent of a powerful narcotic.”  

In 2013, federal banking regulators started cracking down on JPMorgan for not reporting suspicious activities and not supervising its clients’ transactions sufficiently. There was a “cease and desist” order against the bank for its lapses in attending to potential money laundering. None of this was specific to Epstein, but the bank finally became so nervous about him that they voted to kick him out. Did that stop his financial activities? No. Epstein simply moved his millions over to Deutsche Bank and stayed involved in facilitating occasional business deals for JPMorgan. In other words, he suffered no consequences.

Step 2½: EAR Statement (or Not) 

Since the banks failed to set limits and impose consequences on Epstein, the issue of EAR statements does not fit in this case.

Outcome

With civil and criminal actions building against Epstein, he apparently committed suicide after being arrested in 2019. After not setting limits and imposing consequences on Epstein’s cash withdrawals and international wire transactions for years, finally the banks were made to pay for their lapses and lack of concern. In 2023, JPMorgan paid out $290 million to settle a lawsuit brought by 200 of his victims. Ironically, while Epstein did not experience financial consequences, the banks did. (Deutsche Bank also had to pay out a $100 million settlement to victims and regulators.) While the JPMorgan settlement would be considered a huge amount to most people, it was actually just a slap on the hand as the bank brought in over $50 billion in profits that year.   

In other words, in answer to the first of the 5 Questions: Was the consequence proportional to the limit that was set? the answer is “No!” In answer to the third of the 5 Questions: Was the consequence safe? Again the answer is “No!” It was unlikely to protect future victims of such sex trafficking with cash run through large banks. As one professor and human-trafficking expert said, the bank clearly “enabled” Epstein’s behavior. But with only a slap on the hand, she believes that banks may still tolerate doing business with human traffickers. “It’s still profitable to do that, given the lack of substantial consequences.” (Emphasis added.)

Lessons Learned

Critically, these weak consequences in both the legal and financial systems didn’t just let Epstein escape accountability — they left hundreds of young girls unprotected. According to investigative reporting from the Miami Herald and the New York Times, stronger legal sentences or stricter financial oversight could have prevented further harm. This human tragedy underscores a key SLIC principle: consequences must be safe, meaningful, and effective — not merely symbolic. A consequence that isn’t ‘safe’ fails its primary purpose, as it did here.

The Epstein case certainly exposes systemic weaknesses, including inconsistent enforcement and institutional bias. SLIC Solutions emphasizes that setting limits and imposing consequences is only effective when authorities and institutions we trust are willing and able to enforce them. While broader legal reform is important, the framework still provides practical guidance for individuals and organizations to apply limits and consequences consistently within their scope of control.

In terms of the SLIC Solutions technique, this case demonstrates the need to match the consequences to the limits that have been violated. Remember the 5 Questions. In terms of EAR statements, this example did not demonstrate truly setting limits and imposing consequences but instead showed the result when too many people have too much empathy and respect for a wealthy man and too little empathy and respect for his victims. In such a case, EAR statements are not what is needed. Firm limits and powerful consequences are what is needed.

This example highlights the fact that those in powerful positions in law and finance have a hard time setting limits and imposing consequences on their friends, just as much as ordinary people or more so. These are important skills for everyone to learn these day, in families, at work, in communities, online, and in the highest levels of wealth and legal power. The more that everyone learns how to routinely and appropriately set limits and impose consequences, the better off and safer young people will be and we all will be. We can learn to do this.

References

David Enrich, Matthew Goldstein, and Jessica Silver-Greenberg, “The reporters, who started investigating Epstein more than six years ago, reviewed more than 13,000 pages of legal and financial records for this article.” The New York Times. Sept. 8, 2025.

Julie K. Brown, “For years, Jeffrey Epstein abused teen girls, police say. A timeline of his case,” Miami Herald, Nov. 28, 2018. Retrieved on Sept. 19, 2025 from: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/article221404845.html

Landon Thomas, “Financier Starts Sentence in Prostitution Case,” The New York Times, July 1, 2008.

---

BILL EDDY, LCSW, Esq.  is a lawyer, therapist, mediator, author and trainer in managing people with high conflict personalities. Ekaterina Ricci, MDR, MLS, is a mediator, dispute resolver, and biologist. They are the co-authors of the new book SLIC Solutions™ for Conflict: Setting Limits and Imposing Consequences in 2½ Steps. (Unhooked Books, 2025).