The campaign to boycott JPmorgan is accelerating online as fresh Epstein disclosures and new index removal fears converge around the Wall Street giant.
Why is the crypto community pushing a JPMorgan boycott?
A fast-growing grassroots campaign to “boycott JPMorgan” is spreading across social platforms, with users claiming they are closing accounts and urging others to move funds. Moreover, critics argue the bank is leading a coordinated attack on Bitcoin and Strategy (MSTR) shareholders, tying market structure changes to wider distrust of traditional finance.
The latest flashpoint centers on reports that MSCI plans to remove crypto treasury firms, including Strategy (formerly MicroStrategy), from its equity indexes. The reclassification, scheduled for January 2026, could treat such companies as investment funds rather than operating businesses, potentially reshaping how major institutions can hold the stock.
JPMorgan highlighted the potential MSCI index removal in a research note, warning that the change could trigger heavy outflows from affected firms. According to the bank, outflows may reach $2.8 billion initially and could climb as high as $8.8 billion if additional index providers adopt similar methodologies.
What role does JPMorgan play in the Strategy and MSTR debate?
Speculation intensified when longtime Bitcoin advocate Max Keiser referenced unconfirmed claims that JPMorgan holds a short position in MSTR. He suggested this alleged position could become critical if MSTR were to trade 50% above Friday’s closing price, increasing suspicions among retail investors already wary of Wall Street motives.
This narrative has deepened distrust toward JPMorgan inside crypto circles. As a result, Bitcoin and Strategy supporters are now openly urging a crypto community boycott, calling on customers to withdraw funds, close accounts, and shift capital away from the bank to signal disapproval of perceived anti-crypto strategies.
Keiser amplified the message with a stark slogan: “CRASH JP MORGAN, BUY MSTR (& BITCOIN),” encapsulating the push to both punish the bank and support firms seen as aligned with the Bitcoin ethos.
How do Epstein-linked documents fuel anger at JPMorgan?
The current backlash is not limited to index politics or market structure. Instead, it has merged with renewed outrage over JPMorgan Epstein documents and the bank’s historical handling of suspicious clients. In late October, unsealed court records revealed that JPMorgan filed a suspicious activity report (SAR) in 2019, shortly after Jeffrey Epstein’s death in federal custody.
The filing detailed transactions tied to Epstein, several business associates, and transfers to banks in Russia. JPMorgan’s internal review identified roughly 4,700 transactions totaling more than $1 billion, underscoring the extensive financial flows linked to the disgraced financier over many years.
Bank spokesperson Patricia Wexler defended JPMorgan’s compliance record, arguing that the newly public SARs show it had repeatedly raised alarms. She stated that the bank filed reports when it exited Epstein in 2013 and “repeatedly between 2013 and 2019, as required,” adding that it does not appear government agencies acted on many of those warnings for years.
What does the Senate say about JPMorgan’s suspicious activity reports?
However, the Senate’s analysis paints a different picture of JPMorgan’s oversight. Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Ron Wyden released a review last week asserting that the bank effectively protected Epstein while he was alive. His team concluded that JPMorgan flagged only minimal red flags in that period, reporting just a handful of transactions worth slightly more than $4.3 million.
Only after Epstein died did the bank submit sweeping JPMorgan suspicious activity reports covering nearly $1.3 billion in transactions over more than a decade, or almost 300 times the value previously reported. That timing, Wyden argued, raised serious questions about whether JPMorgan’s executives ignored or suppressed internal compliance concerns.
Wyden said, “It’s clear that JPMorgan Chase ought to face criminal investigation for the way it enabled Epstein’s horrific crimes.” He accused bank executives of tuning out compliance staff, withholding potential money laundering evidence, and even coaching Epstein on how to hide large cash withdrawals, calling it a failure that likely reached the top of the executive suite.
Could the JPMorgan boycott reshape the bank’s standing?
That said, it remains unclear whether this rising online campaign will significantly affect JPMorgan’s vast global business. Nevertheless, the mstr short position rumors, the looming Strategy reclassification, and the Senate’s Epstein findings have combined into a potent narrative that resonates strongly with crypto investors already skeptical of large banks.
As MSCI’s January 2026 changes approach and Congressional scrutiny intensifies, JPMorgan faces mounting pressure from activists urging customers to withdraw funds JPMorgan and from lawmakers demanding greater accountability. The coming months will show whether the current outcry fades or evolves into a lasting challenge to the bank’s reputation and influence in both traditional and digital markets.
Source: https://en.cryptonomist.ch/2025/11/24/jpmorgan-boycott-epstein/
