When most people think about Jeffrey Epstein, they think of a sexual-abuse scandal. But it’s also a financial scandal — one in which JPMorgan, the nation’s largest bank, not only enabled Epstein’s sex-trafficking operation but also enriched him while reaping profits for the bank.

Some elements of that relationship have become public, but the full extent of JPMorgan’s involvement with Epstein has not been known. We combed through more than 13,000 pages of legal and financial records — including sealed depositions and internal bank records — to understand how America’s leading lender enabled the century’s most notorious sexual predator.

Joseph Evangelisti, a spokesman for JPMorgan, said in a statement that the bank’s relationship with Epstein “was a mistake and in hindsight we regret it, but we did not help him commit his heinous crimes.”

Here are five takeaways from our Magazine investigation:

Epstein used JPMorgan as a crucial cog in his sex-trafficking operation.

During a time when Epstein was regularly sexually abusing teenage girls and young women, JPMorgan processed more than 4,700 transactions, totaling more than $1.1 billion, for him, including payments to his victims. It also wired his money to Russian and Eastern European banks that appeared connected to Epstein’s sex-trafficking operations.

Cash is a currency of criminals, and JPMorgan allowed Epstein to withdraw tens of thousands of dollars a month — amounts that should have set off internal alarms. The bank also opened accounts for Epstein’s victims and assistants, sometimes without conducting proper due diligence and missing warning signs for human trafficking.

Bank employees sounded the alarm about how Epstein was using the bank — but their warnings went unheeded.

The bank’s staff raised concerns as far back as 2006, when Epstein was first arrested and indicted on a charge of soliciting prostitution from a teenager. Employees noted that Epstein’s routine and voluminous cash withdrawals were red flags for illicit activity. They also expressed concerns about the potential reputational fallout from serving a convicted sex criminal.