JPMorgan Chase is facing a lawsuit after it allegedly defamed a man based on false allegations from an obscure left-wing blog post, according to a complaint provided to the Daily Caller.

The feud began when a left-wing blog, The Stern Facts, posted an article by Patrick Simpson. The post falsely claimed that Florida’s Jacob Gitman and his business Monarch Air Group, LLC were affiliated with the Russian Mafia and former President Donald Trump, according to an executive summary obtained by the Caller.

Monarch has contracts with the federal government and received $160,000 from the Department of Justice (DOJ) in the past twelve months, according to USA Spending. Monarch’s website states it is a private jet and air charter company that “provides mission critical supplies” to the federal government.

The small blog has not posted anything since 2020, yet it managed to allegedly catch the attention of Chase Bank. Simpson’s post claimed “judges in multiple states” asserted that Gitman’s business was a front for the Russian mob.

But according to the blogger himself, this claim was fabricated. Nonetheless, Chase seemingly used the blog post to help justify it’s decision to de-bank Gitman.

Gitman’s other business — Sinai Holdings — was allegedly defamed as a result and lost its $600 million credit line, according to the 2023 lawsuit. Sinai operates various clinics, medical device manufacturers and surgical centers. (RELATED: ‘Full Service Bank’: JPMorgan Processed More Than $1 Billion For Jeffrey Epstein, US Virgin Islands Reportedly Says)

He’s abusing the powers of the presidency#WhyWeMustImpeachTrumpin7Words

— The Stern Facts (@thesternfacts) October 1, 2017

Chase’s Anti-Money Laundering (AML) Interdiction List Request provided “negative media” as the only explanation for allegedly placing Gitman and Monarch on the list, according to a motion for relief from judgment filed last year. The other reason was reportedly blacked out two separate times.

The plaintiffs learned the “negative media” referred to Simpson’s now-retracted blog post, the documents stated.

Screenshot of retracted post from The Stern Facts

Prior to placing a person and/or business on the list, Chase’s policy is to find “corroborated open source negative media” with allegations of terrorist financing, money laundering or other charges that warrant interdiction, according to the motion. One example would be an indictment from the Department of Justice (DOJ), the document notes.

“Chase did not do anything to corroborate the raw allegations of the Blog Post, which fallaciously claimed that judges said Monarch is a Russian Mafia front,” the documents added.

Monarch and Gitman sued the blog’s publisher, Grant Stern, who is the executive director of the group Occupy Democrats, according to his Twitter account.

During his deposition, Simpson admitted the article was false. He also testified he was unaware of any evidence that Gitman, his family or his companies were affiliated with the Russian Mafia, according to documents.

“So, we sued that blogger, and he admitted under oath that he has no evidence for that,” Gitman’s attorney, Josh Kon of  Stok Kon + Braverman, told the Caller.

Just voted early in Miami for Kamala Harris to be the next President of the United States, for Rep. Mucarsel-Powell to be our next US senator, NO TO ALL FLORIDA SUPREME COURT JUSTICES and YES on 3, YES on 4.

Have you voted yet??? If not, what’s your plan? pic.twitter.com/575PHpttqm

— Grant Stern  (@grantstern) October 29, 2024

According to Stok Kon + Braverman’s executive summary, Chase’s internal documents reportedly said: “[d]uring the trial, the US judge stated that in addition to their legitimate activities as airline companies, that [the business was] also used as fronts for the Russian Mafia.”

The Caller reached out to JPMorgan Chase’s legal contact, Trish Wexler, who declined to comment.

Sinai Holdings LLC was placed on Chase’s “Interdiction List,” the lawsuit alleged.

Chase allegedly cancels transactions sent to list members and forwards a message claiming the transaction cannot be completed “due to Sanctions and/or internal JPMC policy,” the lawsuit claimed. (EXCLUSIVE: Watchdog Takes Aim At ‘De-Banking’ Tactic Weaponized Against Conservatives, Religious Groups)

The U.S. Treasury Department oversees the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), which deals with sanctions against certain foreign countries, terrorists and various other threats to the United States, according to the office’s website.

Chase created an internal department — the Sanctions Services Utility (SSU) — to relay to customers and financial institutions when they attempt to transfer money to sanctioned countries or entities, according to the lawsuit.

However, the lawsuit asserts these transactions were never canceled due to OFAC investigations or sanctions. The complaint further alleges that Chase “falsely” told the plaintiff’s business associates, including Sinai’s lender, that Chase could not send money due to an OFAC investigation and sanctions.

Screenshot of Chase’s internal policy from Stok Kon + Braverman Attorneys At Law executive summary

“So essentially, it’s like a — defamation policy structure, like a defamation policy framework, that anybody that’s pulled into the web is automatically defamed,” Kon told the Caller.

The message also says the cancellation involves an “OFAC investigation,” and the subject line of the message allegedly includes “OFAC investigation – Cancellation of Payment,” according to the complaint. (RELATED: ‘It’s Dangerous’: Daily Caller Reporter Reagan Reese Rips ‘De-banking’ Of John Eastman, Christian Groups)

“When powerful forces in government use financial institutions to blacklist people with dissenting views, it not only restricts basic financial freedoms, but it also sends a powerful suppressive message to those who dare to speak against the prevailing narrative of the day,” Bledsoe told the Caller. “It’s unconstitutional, it’s an extrajudicial limitation of free speech and religious exercise, and it sends us down a dark path towards totalitarianism.”

Chase told business associates of Gitman and his company — including Sinai’s lender — it could not send money because of an OFAC investigation and sanctions, according to the lawsuit.

Chase’s interdiction list is run by its Gibraltar Financial Intelligence Unit (GFIU) department.

In addition to the blog post, Chase’s GFIU “wildly speculated that monies Monarch sent between entities” were potentially involved in possible interference during the 2016 presidential election, according to the 2023 motion.

Gitman testified the bank was motivated by “personal and political ill-will,” documents said. The motion stated the bank’s redactions attributed the Russian interference claim to Simpson’s blog post.

Democratic California Congresswoman Maxine Waters subpoenaed Monarch but “found nothing suspicious,” according to documents. She reportedly used Monarch afterwards for two flights to a foreign country, the motion stated. Chase allegedly refused to testify about the subpoena.

Our goal was to bring about meaningful change at @Chase bank. And by God’s grace, we did.

ADF’s Jay Hobbs on our work holding corporations accountable through our Viewpoint Diversity Score Business Index.https://t.co/85SmSJTsPh pic.twitter.com/4cmUlXCIHm

— Alliance Defending Freedom (@ADFLegal) June 19, 2024

Gitman and Sinai lost business and their lender rescinded its loans after Chase said the transactions were cancelled because of OFAC sanctions, according to documents.

As a result of the alleged defamation, Gitman and his company’s bank accounts at institutions like Bank of America were closed, the complaint notes. Sinai failed to make payments due to losing its credit line, and the plaintiff’s lender rescinded its loans under Sinai’s credit line because of Chase’s statements, according to documents.

Gitman and Sinai could not pay bills for construction projects or rent, and they are being sued by pharmaceutical companies for $12 million for outstanding fees, according to the complaint.

“So, all in all, the blog made up something about what judges never said and Chase used that false and uncorroborated claim, and added its own wild Russian interference claims, to interdict and cancel all transactions around the world,” Stok Kon + Braverman stated in its executive summary of the case.

The lawsuit seeks a permanent injunction against Chase to stop publishing “falsities” about OFAC sanctions when it cancels transactions related to Gitman and his company. (RELATED: Biden Admin Revives Russian Election Interference Bogeyman Just In Time For November)

🚨 Representatives from JPMorgan Chase attended virtually all DHS meetings about federal government efforts to censor disinformation on social media.

Are they laying the groundwork for “de-banking” to become an (even more) mainstream strategy?
https://t.co/yTIeLvQjr2 pic.twitter.com/BFehCIupDQ

— Natalie Winters (@nataliegwinters) October 31, 2022

This is not the first instance of Chase coming under fire for alleged “de-banking.” Last year, Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) exposed how JPMorgan Chase de-banked the National Committee for Religious Freedom by canceling its checking account in 2022.

“The Supreme Court and legal scholars have consistently linked financial freedom with the ability for citizens to exercise their first amendment free speech rights,” Eric Bledsoe, Senior Fellow for the Foundation for Government Accountability, said in a statement to the Caller.

Republican Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody demanded in 2023 that JP Morgan Chase stop its alleged discrimination against religious and political beliefs.

“This latest instance of politically-motivated de-banking should send chills down the spine of anyone who values the constitution and core American values,” Bledsoe told the Caller.

“Policymakers at the state and federal levels have the ability to ban this practice and the power to protect their constituents from the same fate.”

John Eastman, an attorney for Trump, previously told the Caller that he was “de-banked” by Bank of America and USAA. Eastman came under fire for advising Trump around the 2020 presidential election and told the Caller he was “99.9% confident” the de-banking was for political reasons.