A former JPMorgan Chase employee, Chirayu Rana, has initiated legal action against executive director Lorna Hajdini, alleging sexual abuse and professional coercion.

前摩根大通員工 Chirayu Rana 已對執行董事 Lorna Hajdini 提起法律訴訟，指控其涉嫌性虐待與職場脅迫。

The litigation originates from claims that Ms. Hajdini subjected Mr. Rana to sexual harassment and the non-consensual administration of pharmacological substances, specifically Rohypnol and Viagra, during early 2024. Mr. Rana further asserts that his professional bonuses were leveraged to ensure compliance with these demands. To substantiate these claims, recent filings include testimonials from anonymous witnesses. One such account describes an incident in September 2024 involving an invitation to a sexual encounter and alleged audible pleas from Mr. Rana for the executive to vacate the premises. Other witness statements cite observations of inappropriate physical proximity at public venues and the use of derogatory language by Ms. Hajdini.

本訴訟源於指控，稱 Hajdini 女士於 2024 年初對 Rana 先生進行性騷擾，並在其非自願的情況下 administering 藥物，特別是 Rohypnol 和 Viagra。Rana 先生進一步主張，其專業獎金被用作脅迫手段以確保其服從這些要求。為了證明這些指控，最近提交的文件包含了匿名證人的證詞。其中一份陳述描述了 2024 年 9 月的一起事件，涉及對方邀請其進行性行為，且據稱 Rana 先生當時大聲要求該高管離開現場。其他證人陳述則提到在公共場所觀察到不適當的身體接觸，以及 Hajdini 女士使用侮辱性語言。

Conversely, the institutional response from JPMorgan Chase and the defense provided by Ms. Hajdini's legal counsel emphasize a total absence of evidentiary support. An internal investigation, encompassing the review of electronic communications and witness testimonies, yielded no corroboration of the claims. Furthermore, the bank noted that Mr. Rana did not maintain a direct reporting line to Ms. Hajdini and declined to cooperate with the internal probe. Ms. Hajdini has categorically denied all allegations, asserting she was never present at the locations cited in the lawsuit.

相反地，摩根大通的機構回應以及 Hajdini 女士的法律代表強調，完全缺乏證據支持。一項涵蓋電子通訊審查和證人證詞的內部調查，並未發現任何可證實該指控的結果。此外，銀行指出 Rana 先生並非直接向 Hajdini 女士匯報工作，且其拒絕配合內部調查。Hajdini 女士斷然否認所有指控，聲明她從未出現在訴訟中提到的地點。

Significant scrutiny has been directed toward Mr. Rana's professional conduct and veracity. Evidence indicates that in December 2024, Mr. Rana secured an extended paid leave by falsely claiming the demise of his father, who remains living. This period of absence coincided with the drafting of the legal complaint. Additionally, Mr. Rana's employment history shows a brief tenure at Bregal Sagemount, from which he departed abruptly on April 2, 2026, shortly before the lawsuit was filed in the Manhattan Supreme Court.

目前各界對 Rana 先生的職業操守與誠信度提出了重大質疑。證據顯示，Rana 先生在 2024 年 12 月透過謊稱其尚在世的父親去世，獲准延長有薪假。而這段缺勤期間恰逢法律訴狀的起草之時。此外，Rana 先生的就業歷史顯示他在 Bregal Sagemount 僅任職短暫，並於 2026 年 4 月 2 日突然離職，隨後不久便在曼哈頓最高法院提起訴訟。

The matter remains contested in the New York court system, with the plaintiff presenting witness statements and a psychological diagnosis of PTSD, while the defendant and the institution maintain the claims are fabricated.

此案仍於紐約法院系統中爭執中。原告提交了證人陳述以及 PTSD（創傷後壓力症候群）的心理診斷，而被告與該機構則堅持指控純屬捏造。