Bank of America Reaches Settlement With Epstein Victims
Bank of America has reached a settlement in a federal lawsuit accusing the bank of ignoring warning signs in financial transactions linked to Jeffrey Epstein’s sex trafficking operation.
Lawyers for the bank and the woman who filed the case, identified in court records as Jane Doe, told U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff during a March 12 conference that the parties had reached a settlement in principle. The agreement must still be approved by the court. The terms of the settlement have not been disclosed.
The lawsuit, filed in October in federal court in Manhattan, seeks class action status on behalf of women who say Epstein abused them. It alleges Bank of America ignored warning signs in transactions tied to Epstein and his associates, allowing money to move through accounts connected to his network.
According to the complaint, the woman first met Epstein in Russia in 2011 and later lived in New York while she was allegedly abused by him between 2011 and 2019. Epstein’s associates directed her to open bank accounts at Bank of America that were later used to transfer funds and pay expenses tied to his operation.
Court filings state that a $14,000 transfer was made into one of the accounts shortly after it was opened. The lawsuit claims the account continued to be used by Epstein’s associates for payments and transfers until he died in 2019.
The complaint further alleges that the woman was placed on the payroll of what it describes as a shell company. Payments were allegedly routed through accounts connected to the bank as part of Epstein’s operation.
The lawsuit also points to payments made to Epstein by wealthy clients as part of the broader financial activity surrounding his network. Among them were more than $150 million transferred by investor Leon Black, co-founder of Apollo Global Management, for what he described as tax and estate planning advice. Black stepped down as Apollo’s chief executive in 2021 after scrutiny over his financial relationship with Epstein. He has denied wrongdoing and said he was unaware of Epstein’s criminal conduct.
Bank of America previously asked the court to dismiss the case last year, arguing that it provided routine banking services to customers who at the time had no confirmed connection to Epstein’s crimes. In court filings, the bank described the allegations that it knowingly participated in wrongdoing as “threadbare and meritless.”
Judge Rakoff rejected that argument earlier this year and allowed the lawsuit to proceed. In a January ruling, he determined the complaint plausibly alleged the bank could have knowingly benefited from Epstein’s trafficking operation and may have obstructed enforcement of the federal Trafficking Victims Protection Act.
That federal law, often referred to as the TVPA, allows victims of human trafficking to sue individuals or organizations that knowingly benefit from a trafficking scheme. Liability does not require that a company directly participate in trafficking. Courts instead examine whether a business received financial benefits while continuing to provide services despite clear warning signs of illegal activity.
In lawsuits involving financial institutions, the legal focus often centers on whether banks fulfilled their regulatory obligations to monitor account activity and report suspicious transactions. Under federal anti-money laundering rules, banks must file Suspicious Activity Reports with regulators when financial patterns appear unusual or potentially tied to criminal conduct. The lawsuit claims the bank failed to report suspicious financial patterns linked to Epstein and his associates despite repeated warning signs.
Prior settlements tied to Epstein’s activities have already involved major financial institutions. In 2023, Epstein accusers reached agreements totaling $290 million with JPMorgan Chase and $75 million with Deutsche Bank.
Lawyers for both sides are expected to submit legal papers outlining the proposed settlement by March 27. Judge Rakoff scheduled a hearing for April 2 to consider the agreement. A trial previously scheduled for May 11 will not proceed if the settlement is approved.
