I know this is an extreme case, but IMO it’s not the banks job to punish criminals.

and yet mastercard etc are capable of harassing valve.

This definitely wasn't business as usual. Epstein was flagged repeatedly for engaging in cash withdrawal patterns that suggested illegal activities and bank execs chose to continue allowing those withdrawals. Additionally, if your banker is also consulting you on business decision about the bank, you are not just a regular bank customer. It is clear from the article that JP Morgan executives knew Epstein and actively facilitated his criminal enterprise.

From the (very long) NYT article that dropped today about this:

• Epstein was likely money laundering for quite some time, Bank ignored red flags because the penalties would almost certainly be less than the profits from moving that much money around. This is the big reason why he didn't get cut loose. I'm sure JPM was taking a cut on all the transfers of non-cash deposits (securities, etc) and also making money on the balance of accounts as they moved through their system (being laundered). Getting to trade on $1B while it's being disbursed is a lot of why these "market makers" are so powerful. Critically, they're supposed to be reporting on large cash withdrawls - if you or I pulled out $180k in a year in physical cash the feds would be coming by to see what was going on.
• Despite the potential bad optics of bankrolling a pedophile money launderer, They continued lending & consulting him because he got them add'l whale clients, including the CEO of Google (4B+ Customer) and business with highly profitable hedge funds
• When things became untenable (tried + convicted sex offender, serving 18 months in FLA) the senior exec who had been covering for him (and profiting from his referrals and money laundering) lobbied to keep him because he, himself, had been entrapped in Epstein's sex trafficking operation (as a customer, obv).
• Once word of one of their seniors being Epstein's pal became public JPM cut everyone loose. This is pretty routine behavior by wall street tbh. Crime until you're caught.

Obviously trustworthy banks don't enable money laundering, so he should really have been dropped in the 90's/00's. Certainly his '11 conviction should have been the end of it. Incarcerated white-collar criminals usually lose big after the first conviction because the revenue stream has dried up and the justice-averting lawyers can't be paid. In this case, his contacts kept the money moving because they were embroiled in the same schemes.

Yeah i have to agree, banks shouldn't even have the option to just decide to process the money.

Agreed, this is blame shifting. Just like blaming companies for doing things for profit that are not regulated well enough, or enforced/fined enough.