A federal judge in New York has ruled that allegations claiming Bank of America ignored glaring warning signs tied to Jeffrey Epstein’s sex trafficking activities are strong enough to keep a high-stakes civil lawsuit alive.
In a detailed opinion explaining an earlier decision, the court said the plaintiffs plausibly argued that the bank acted with “reckless disregard” — a legal threshold sufficient, at this stage, to move forward with claims under the federal Trafficking Victims Protection Act. The ruling does not determine guilt. It simply clears the path for the case to proceed toward trial.
At the heart of the lawsuit is an unnamed woman who alleges that Bank of America knowingly benefited from Epstein’s trafficking operations and obstructed enforcement of federal anti-trafficking law. While the judge dismissed several other claims, two central accusations survived — enough to ensure the case heads toward a courtroom showdown scheduled for May 11.
The court pointed to allegations that the bank provided services that were not routine, including granting the plaintiff “premier” client status and facilitating significant fund transfers despite red flags. According to the opinion, the complaint plausibly claims the bank overlooked media scrutiny surrounding Epstein and failed to question substantial transactions flowing through an account allegedly held by a young woman of limited financial means.
The judge also noted allegations that a bank employee — previously associated with Epstein at other major financial institutions — may have had direct knowledge of Epstein’s trafficking activities. If proven, such knowledge could expose the bank to civil liability.
Bank of America, headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina, said it welcomes a full airing of the facts in court. The institution had argued that merely serving wealthy clients connected to Epstein did not amount to knowingly aiding criminal conduct or obstructing authorities.
The plaintiff contends that major financial institutions continued business relationships with Epstein until his 2019 arrest because profitability outweighed concern for victims. Epstein died in jail weeks after his arrest while awaiting trial.
Other banks have already paid substantial settlements related to similar claims, though without admitting wrongdoing.
Now, the focus shifts to May, when the surviving allegations will be tested in open court — and the scrutiny will extend beyond one disgraced financier to the financial machinery that enabled him.
