JPMorgan Boycott Intensifies as Epstein Revelations Meet Strategy Index Controversy

A grassroots campaign to “boycott JPMorgan” is gaining momentum across social media, with a large number of users reportedly closing their accounts.

The community alleges that the bank has launched a “coordinated attack on Bitcoin and Strategy (MSTR) shareholders.” The backlash intensified after newly released Senate documents suggested that JPMorgan had under-reported Jeffrey Epstein’s suspicious transactions for years.

Why Are Users Boycotting JPMorgan?

The backlash began after reports that MSCI plans to remove crypto treasury firms, including Strategy (formerly MicroStrategy), from its indexes. The change is scheduled to take effect in January 2026.

Notably, JPMorgan flagged the potential exclusion in a research note. If implemented, the adjustment could reclassify firms like Strategy as investment funds.

This could trigger significant outflows. JPMorgan’s research estimates that outflows could reach $2.8 billion. This could go as high as $8.8 billion across if additional providers follow suit.

Furthermore, Max Keiser pointed to unconfirmed reports claiming that JPMorgan holds a short position in MSTR. He added that the position could become critical if MSTR were to trade 50% above Friday’s closing price.

“JP Morgan dumps 25% of their MSTR position right before MSCI announces Bitcoin companies can’t enter major indexes. Nothing to see here. Just another perfectly timed institutional trade. The game is rigged, but Bitcoin doesn’t care about their indexes,” a crypto watchdog added.

This speculation has deepened existing distrust toward JPMorgan within crypto circles. As a result, Bitcoin and Strategy supporters are calling on users to join the boycott and withdraw their funds from the bank.

“CRASH JP MORGAN, BUY MSTR (& BITCOIN),” Keiser posted.

The Link Between Jeffrey Epstein and JPMorgan

The boycott conversation has also widened to include renewed scrutiny of JPMorgan’s alleged ties to Jeffrey Epstein. In late October, unsealed court documents showed that the bank filed a suspicious activity report (SAR) in 2019, shortly after Epstein’s death.

The filing outlined transactions connected to Epstein and several business associates, as well as transfers he made to banks in Russia. JPMorgan identified approximately 4,700 transactions totaling more than $1 billion.

“The SARs do confirm what’s been inferred all along: the bank filed SARs about Epstein early on, and specifically when it exited Epstein from the bank in 2013 – and repeatedly between 2013 and 2019, as required. It does not appear that anyone in the government or law enforcement acted on those SARs for years,” JPMorgan’s spokesperson Patricia Wexler said.

Nonetheless, the Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Ron Wyden’s analysis, released last week, claimed that JPMorgan protected Epstein. Wyden’s review concludes that the bank reported only minimal red flags while Epstein was alive, identifying just a handful of transactions worth slightly more than $4.3 million.

Only after Epstein died in federal custody did JPMorgan submit sweeping suspicious activity reports. This time, it covered nearly $1.3 billion in transactions spanning over a decade. This was almost 300 times the value the bank had previously reported.

“It’s clear that JPMorgan Chase ought to face criminal investigation for the way it enabled Epstein’s horrific crimes. Bank executives tuned out compliance officers who were alarmed by Epstein’s transactions, seemingly withheld evidence of potential money laundering, and coached Epstein on how to obscure suspiciously large cash withdrawals. This goes beyond a total compliance breakdown, and it’s impossible to believe the decisions that led to this disaster never reached the very top of the executive suite,” Senator Wyden stated.

As the boycott movement grows and regulatory scrutiny deepens, JPMorgan now faces mounting pressure on multiple fronts. The coming months, especially as MSCI’s 2026 reclassification approaches and Senate investigations continue, will determine whether the backlash fades or evolves into a broader challenge to the bank’s reputation and influence.