A federal judge has approved a $72.5 million settlement between Bank of America and women who accused the bank of helping facilitate sexual abuse connected to the late financier Jeffrey Epstein. The agreement resolves a class action lawsuit that alleged the bank failed to properly respond to suspicious financial activity tied to Epstein and his trafficking network.
Judge Says Settlement Offers Meaningful Compensation
U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff said during a hearing in Manhattan that he would grant final approval to the $72.5 million class action settlement.
Rakoff said the agreement would give many of Epstein’s victims “substantial” compensation and provide “justice, even if partial.”
The settlement covers women who accused Bank of America of facilitating their abuse by allowing financial transactions connected to Epstein to continue through the bank.
Three accusers challenged the agreement. They argued that it was too broad because it required them to give up related claims against Bank of America and other possible defendants without receiving separate compensation for those claims.
Rakoff rejected that argument. He also rejected their claim that the settlement should not cover accusations that were significantly different from those made by the lead plaintiff.
Jane Doe’s Lawsuit Focused on Epstein’s Banking Activity
The lead plaintiff in the lawsuit is identified by the pseudonym Jane Doe.
Doe, a Florida resident, said she was living in Russia when she met Epstein. According to the lawsuit, Epstein sexually abused her at least 100 times between 2011 and 2019.
She also said Epstein repeatedly paid her as part of his sex trafficking activities and that money was regularly transferred into and out of her Bank of America accounts.
The lawsuit argued that these financial activities should have raised concerns at the bank and led to greater scrutiny.
Banks Accused of Ignoring Warning Signs
The Bank of America case is part of a wider group of lawsuits involving financial institutions that did business with Epstein.
The lawsuits have accused banks of failing to properly investigate suspicious transactions because they did not want to lose Epstein as a wealthy client.
Many of those transactions reportedly occurred after Epstein pleaded guilty in Florida in 2008 to a state prostitution charge and became a registered sex offender.
The cases have raised broader questions about how banks identify suspicious transactions and whether financial institutions can be held responsible when their services are allegedly connected to criminal activity.
Other Banks Have Paid Hundreds of Millions
The Bank of America settlement follows major agreements involving other financial institutions connected to Epstein.
In 2023, lawyers representing Epstein accusers reached a $290 million settlement with JPMorgan Chase and a $75 million settlement with Deutsche Bank.
Those settlements, like the Bank of America case, centered on allegations that financial institutions ignored warning signs involving Epstein’s activities.
Together, the agreements have resulted in hundreds of millions of dollars being made available to people who accused Epstein of sexual abuse and trafficking.
Bank of America Denies Facilitating Trafficking
Bank of America agreed to settle the case in March 2026.
However, the bank said when the agreement was reached that it did not facilitate sex trafficking crimes. The settlement therefore ends the class action without the bank admitting that it helped Epstein carry out his criminal activities.
Epstein died in a Manhattan jail in August 2019 while awaiting trial on federal sex trafficking charges. New York City’s medical examiner ruled his death a suicide.
Settlement Brings Another Major Epstein Case to a Close
The court’s approval of the $72.5 million settlement marks another major legal resolution involving the financial institutions that handled Epstein’s money. While Bank of America has denied facilitating trafficking, Judge Rakoff said the agreement offers meaningful compensation and at least partial justice to many of the women involved. The case also continues to highlight the responsibility banks face when suspicious financial activity may be linked to serious crimes.
