Former JPMorgan banker Chirayu Rana’s salacious lawsuit accusing his female boss of forcing him to be her “sex slave” is likely falling apart at the seams, legal experts told The Post.

Recent developments in the sensational Manhattan case — including Rana’s original lawyer looking to exit hours before a hearing and the plaintiff’s hiring of a slew of new pricy lawyers trying to ditch state court for a federal venue — are signs of “emotional desperation” and a failing lawsuit, they said.

“He, in my opinion, does not have a case,” said employment lawyer Nicole Brenecki.

One glaring indication of the case’s problems is that Rana’s new five-member legal team moved to drop it in state court last week and refile it in federal court, citing “new” evidence and federal statutes. 

On paper, the move has no major procedural or strategic benefit except one: Rana could be fleeing state court after facing a no-nonsense judge who vocalized skepticism at their first hearing last month, the experts said.

“It’s the same nature of the accusations and the same relief, which means that they’re likely forum-shopping,” Brenecki said.

Judge Dakota Ramseur — who Brenecki argues before regularly – is “so no-nonsense, no bulls–t” and has no patience for frivolous suits clogging the state court system, she said.

Brenecki added that Ramseur’s comment urging an out-of-court resolution in the case “was not a great sign for [Rana]. 

“Translated into layman’s terms: this case is such nonsense, and it should not occupy the court’s docket,” Brenecki said.

Another lawyer, David Ring, said that while Rana’s reasons for swapping out state court for federal jurisdiction may be legitimate, he’s just as likely to be “trying his luck with a different judge in federal court.

“Rana could be in for a rude awakening if he filed a completely bogus lawsuit that destroyed an innocent person’s reputation,” Ring said. “Federal judges will not tolerate that type of misconduct.”

Brenecki added of the plaintiff’s camp, “I think the statements they make to the press, that there’s new evidence and the federal statutes — this is likely not the real reason” for the court switch.

“They’re just trying to get a new, fresh start in a new venue.”

But it could be even more of an uphill battle for Rana, experts said.

“Everything is under a microscope, every deadline is actually enforced on the day it is missed,” Brenecki said of federal court. “So, if you actually have a s–t case, then you shouldn’t be putting it in federal court.”

Follow the latest on the bizarre JPMorgan banker ‘sex slave’ allegations:

A judge or the defendants has to sign off on the venue swap since Rana initiated the state case.

And that brings yet another problem: The move will likely be met with demands for Rana to pay for defendant LornaHajdini’s and JPMorgan’s white-shoe lawyers for their dalliance in state court. 

Longtime employment lawyer Susan Crumiller, who specializes in sex abuse and workplace discrimination, said those bills could easily already be above six-figures.

A separate red flag involving the case occurred when Rana’s first lawyer, Daniel Kaiser, moved to ditch his client on the morning of a hearing designed to keep the plaintiff’s name anonymous — a request immediately denied by Judge Ramseur, experts said.

“The desperation to get out of that anonymity hearing, like trying to get it postponed the morning of the hearing … It’s hard not to infer a level of some sort of emotional desperation,” Crumiller said. 

“One common thing that happens is new facts emerge that damage a client’s credibility, and you could think: Nobody’s going to believe our client, or even worse: I don’t believe my client anymore.”

Rana’s original lawsuit in Manhattan Supreme Court detailed claims that fellow banker Hajdini sexually and racially abused him — including with threats of retaliation unless he became her “sex slave.” 

Hajdini filed a blistering countersuit, claiming defamation and that Rana’s filing has ruined her life.

Experts said the court papers at the heart of the complaint were already setting off alarm bells. 

Although the allegations “are highly specific,” Rana’s legal team has barely filed any evidence backing up their claims — including the supposed “substantial new evidence” cited last week, they said.

Crumiller said it was odd that all of the juicy details “allegedly happened verbally,” especially when so much of contemporary communications are by text and email. 

“It gives pause if you don’t have similar allegations that it happens in writing, too,” she said.

That leaves a fundamental question unanswered for Crumiller: “How are you going to prove your case?”