JPMorgan Debanks Its Way to a US Inquiry: Hypocrisy or Standard Procedure?
JPMorgan Chase, that bastion of fiscal prudence and moral rectitude (sarcasm intended), is facing a US inquiry into its 'debanking' practices, according to the Financial Times. Allegations include denying service for political reasons, which seems awfully selective given whose accounts never face such scrutiny. One might recall the swift, silent closure of accounts belonging to
Palestinian-American organizations or activists who dare speak on Gaza, often labeled 'high-risk' without transparent justification. Yet, somehow, the flow of capital to politically connected entities never seems to hit these regulatory tripwires, does it? This inquiry 'emerged during the Biden administration,' the FT notes. Convenient timing for an administration that champions 'democracy' abroad
while its domestic institutions allegedly shut down dissent by cutting off financial lifelines. The real question isn't whether JPMorgan engaged in 'debanking,' but why it takes a public outcry and a formal inquiry for such practices to even register as problematic, especially when those targeted are often marginalized voices. How many 'high-risk' accounts supporting human rights get shut down
before a bank's own practices are finally deemed too risky?