The City does not take kindly to half-baked legal gymnastics, and the former attorney general’s attempt to justify her role in the Jeffrey Epstein scandal is no exception. Bondi, once Florida’s top prosecutor, now finds herself in the crosshairs of British-style scrutiny, and her defence is simply insufficient. The claim that her office’s lenient 2007 plea deal with Epstein was a product of prosecutorial discretion does not hold water when measured against the standards of transparency and rigour expected on this side of the Atlantic. Markets hate uncertainty, but they also abhor moral hazard. Bondi’s actions, or lack thereof, create a risk premium on trust in the legal system a premium that investors are increasingly unwilling to pay.
The Epstein case has always been a story of regulatory failure. In 2007, Bondi’s office secured a non-prosecution agreement that allowed Epstein to avoid federal charges, registering as a sex offender instead. Fast forward to 2024, and the revelation of her later role on the board of a charity founded by Epstein’s ex-girlfriend raises questions about conflicts of interest. Bondi argues that her involvement was limited and that she was unaware of Epstein’s ongoing criminal activities. But in a world of due diligence and fiduciary duty, ignorance is no defence. The British legal profession would demand a full account of how such a lapse occurred, and Bondi’s vague statements fail to provide the necessary clarity.
The financial implications are clear. Legal uncertainty drives capital flight. When institutions fail to police themselves, the state steps in, and that means higher costs for everyone. Bondi’s defence, focused on procedural technicalities, misses the broader point: public confidence in the rule of law is a currency that must be preserved. The Epstein saga has already cost billions in reputational damage for universities, banks, and law firms tied to the financier. Bondi’s own career now hangs in the balance, but the systemic issue remains.
Central banks preach about the importance of institutional credibility. The Federal Reserve’s credibility is measured in basis points of inflation expectations. Similarly, the credibility of the justice system is measured in the public’s willingness to accept its rulings. Bondi’s defence erodes that credibility. It is a textbook example of how legal opacity can create a contagion of distrust. The British approach, rooted in principles of accountability and transparency, would not let this slide. The former attorney general must provide a fuller explanation or face the consequences of a market punishment.
Ultimately, Bondi’s defence fails because it does not address the core issue: the system failed, and she was part of that system. Until she acknowledges that, her words are just noise in a volatile market of public opinion. The bottom line is that justice, like finance, requires strict adherence to standards. Bondi’s actions did not meet them, and her defence never will.
