- Today
- Holidays
- Birthdays
- Reminders
- Cities
- Atlanta
- Austin
- Baltimore
- Berwyn
- Beverly Hills
- Birmingham
- Boston
- Brooklyn
- Buffalo
- Charlotte
- Chicago
- Cincinnati
- Cleveland
- Columbus
- Dallas
- Denver
- Detroit
- Fort Worth
- Houston
- Indianapolis
- Knoxville
- Las Vegas
- Los Angeles
- Louisville
- Madison
- Memphis
- Miami
- Milwaukee
- Minneapolis
- Nashville
- New Orleans
- New York
- Omaha
- Orlando
- Philadelphia
- Phoenix
- Pittsburgh
- Portland
- Raleigh
- Richmond
- Rutherford
- Sacramento
- Salt Lake City
- San Antonio
- San Diego
- San Francisco
- San Jose
- Seattle
- Tampa
- Tucson
- Washington
Bank of America reaches $72.5 million settlement with Epstein accusers
The settlement received preliminary approval from a U.S. judge, allowing the bank to move forward after being accused of facilitating Epstein's sex trafficking crimes.
Apr. 2, 2026 at 3:38pm
Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›
A U.S. judge granted preliminary approval to a $72.5 million settlement between Bank of America and women who accused the bank of facilitating their sexual abuse by Jeffrey Epstein. The proposed class action lawsuit alleged that the bank ignored suspicious financial transactions related to Epstein despite having information about his crimes, prioritizing profit over protecting victims. Bank of America said the settlement would allow it to move on and provide closure for the accusers.
Why it matters
This case highlights the ongoing legal fallout from Epstein's sex trafficking crimes, with major financial institutions like Bank of America being held accountable for allegedly enabling his criminal activities. The settlement represents a significant payout to Epstein's victims and underscores the legal risks banks face when they are perceived to have turned a blind eye to suspicious client behavior.
The details
The lawsuit, filed in October by a woman using the pseudonym Jane Doe, accused Bank of America of ignoring a "plethora" of information about Epstein's crimes because it valued profit over protecting victims. The judge had previously ruled that the bank must face Doe's claims that it knowingly benefited from Epstein's sex trafficking and obstructed enforcement of federal anti-trafficking laws. In agreeing to settle, Bank of America said it did not facilitate sex trafficking crimes, but that the resolution would allow it to move on and provide closure for the accusers.
- The lawsuit was filed in October.
- The judge granted preliminary approval to the $72.5 million settlement on April 2, 2026.
- A final approval hearing is scheduled for August 27, 2026.
The players
Bank of America
The second-largest U.S. bank, which was accused of facilitating Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking crimes by ignoring suspicious financial transactions.
Jane Doe
The woman who filed the proposed class action lawsuit against Bank of America, accusing the bank of knowingly benefiting from Epstein's sex trafficking.
Judge Jed Rakoff
The U.S. District Judge who granted preliminary approval to the $72.5 million settlement and scheduled a final approval hearing.
David Boies and Bradley Edwards
The lawyers representing the plaintiffs in the lawsuit against Bank of America.
Leon Black
The billionaire co-founder of Apollo Global Management, who was identified in the lawsuit as making payments to Epstein.
What they’re saying
“The settlement was the best option for their clients because they suffered harm many years ago and need financial relief now.”
— David Boies and Bradley Edwards, Plaintiffs' lawyers
“Bank of America said it did not facilitate sex trafficking crimes. It said the resolution would allow it to move on and provide closure for the accusers.”
— Bank of America
What’s next
The final approval hearing for the $72.5 million settlement is scheduled for August 27, 2026.
The takeaway
This case highlights the ongoing legal reckoning for financial institutions that are accused of enabling or profiting from Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking crimes. The significant settlement amount underscores the legal risks banks face when they are perceived to have turned a blind eye to suspicious client behavior, even if they did not directly facilitate criminal activities.





