Bank of America Pays $72.5M to Settle Epstein Claims

Bank of America has agreed to pay $72.5 million (approximately $1.2 million per identified survivor) to settle allegations it facilitated Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking operation by maintaining accounts used to fund his crimes, according to case filing 1:25-cv-08335-JSR lodged in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York on Friday, March 27.

The proposed class action, filed October 15, 2025, by a woman using the pseudonym Jane Doe (docket entry 1:25-cv-08335), accused the second-largest US bank of ignoring suspicious financial transactions despite what court documents describe as "a plethora" of information about Epstein's criminal activities. Those activities were not obscure. Epstein was a registered sex offender (Florida Department of Law Enforcement, offender number 247235). The bank continued servicing him regardless. The problem is not complexity. The problem is choice.

The lead plaintiff claims she was abused by Epstein on at least 100 occasions between 2011 and 2019. She held two accounts at Bank of America at the direction of Epstein's business team during that period, despite his 2008 conviction for soliciting prostitution from a minor. That conviction was public. The bank's due diligence was apparently not.

Wall Street's growing Epstein tab

The settlement continues a pattern. JPMorgan Chase paid $290 million in June 2023 to resolve similar claims in case 1:22-cv-10019-JSR. Judge Rakoff described JPMorgan's relationship with Epstein as "more than negligent." Deutsche Bank followed in May 2024 with $75 million (case 1:19-cv-10018-JSR). The three agreements bring Wall Street's collective Epstein bill to $367.5 million since 2023. None of the banks admitted wrongdoing. All three maintained accounts for Epstein well after his 2008 Florida conviction became public record. The issue is not hindsight. These were preventable failures.

Sigrid McCawley, a partner at Boies Schiller Flexner representing the survivors, said in a statement the resolution was "one more step on the road to much deserved justice." She described billionaire financier Leon Black, co-founder of Apollo Global Management (current market cap $87 billion), as a "critical witness." Black is not named as a defendant. His payments to Epstein, however, are central to the case. The question is not whether Black transferred money. The question is what the bank knew about those transfers.

Court filings allege Black transferred $170 million to Epstein from Bank of America accounts between March 2012 and October 2017, purportedly for "tax and estate planning advice." The March 14 complaint states: "No legitimate tax or estate planning services could possibly justify payments of this magnitude." $170 million is a remarkable fee for tax advice. For context, the largest law firms in New York charge approximately $1,500 per hour for senior partner time. At that rate, $170 million would purchase 113,333 hours, or 54 years of continuous work. The lawsuit claims these transfers were the primary funding source for Epstein's sex-trafficking operation. Black has stated publicly he "deeply regrets" the professional relationship. He has not been charged with any crime.

The compliance failure

The lawsuit focuses on what banks are required to do under the Bank Secrecy Act (31 USC § 5318) and anti-money laundering regulations (31 CFR § 1020.320). Financial institutions must file Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) with FinCEN when they detect transactions that appear unusual, lack obvious legitimate purpose, or involve known criminals. That obligation is not optional. It is federal law. The penalty for non-compliance can reach $1 million per violation.

Bank of America maintained multiple accounts for Epstein and associated entities from June 2013 to August 2019, despite his status as a convicted and registered sex offender (Florida conviction entered July 2008). The lawsuit alleges the bank failed to adequately investigate 47 large wire transfers totalling $170 million that lacked clear commercial rationale. Frankly, $170 million moving from a private equity billionaire to a convicted sex offender over five years constitutes, in the language of banking compliance, "unusual activity." The bank's compliance department either missed this or chose not to act. Neither explanation reflects well.

In a brief statement issued Friday afternoon, Bank of America said the settlement allows it to "put this matter behind us and provides further closure for the plaintiffs." The bank did not admit wrongdoing as part of the agreement. Whether maintaining accounts for a convicted sex offender receiving $170 million in unexplained payments constitutes wrongdoing is, evidently, a matter the bank preferred not to litigate.

What comes next

US District Judge Jed Rakoff set a March 27 deadline for the parties to file the complete terms of the settlement. He scheduled an April 2 hearing at 10:00 AM to consider final approval. Judge Rakoff is the same jurist who approved JPMorgan's $290 million settlement in 2023, describing that institution's conduct as "at best careless and at worst complicit."

Lawyers for the plaintiffs have identified at least 60 women who were victimised by Epstein during the period Bank of America maintained his accounts, according to court filings dated March 14. The $72.5 million settlement fund will be distributed among class members according to a formula to be determined by the court, with final payments expected by late 2026. McCawley estimated individual awards could range from $500,000 to $2 million per survivor, depending on the extent and duration of abuse.

The pattern across three settlements is clear. JPMorgan: $290 million (2023). Deutsche Bank: $75 million (2024). Bank of America: $72.5 million (2026). Wall Street maintained lucrative relationships with a convicted sex offender. The cost of those relationships, measured in legal settlements, now exceeds a third of a billion dollars. None of the three banks filed a single Suspicious Activity Report on Epstein's accounts during the relevant period.

Whether $367.5 million represents adequate accountability is a question better directed to the 60-plus survivors. The banks, having purchased their exits, are evidently content to consider the matter closed.