During a recent hearing in a Manhattan federal courtroom, U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff conveyed significant skepticism toward two civil lawsuits filed by victims of Jeffrey Epstein against Bank of America and BNY Mellon. The plaintiffs, represented by a legal team including David Boies, Sigrid McCawley, Brad Edwards, and Brittany Henderson, alleged that the banks had facilitated Epstein’s sprawling network of sexual exploitation and trafficking by continuing to provide him with financial services despite numerous warning signs. Yet, from the opening minutes of the Monday afternoon session, Judge Rakoff’s remarks made clear his reservations, suggesting that the cases, in their current form, might fail to advance to the trial stage and could instead face dismissal.
Rakoff’s cautious stance was shaped by his familiarity with similar litigation. He drew deliberate comparisons between these two lawsuits and earlier cases he had presided over involving JPMorgan Chase and Deutsche Bank — both of which concerned related claims about Epstein’s financial dealings. Those prior cases ended in settlements, with JPMorgan agreeing to pay $290 million and Deutsche Bank reaching a $75 million resolution. Against that backdrop, the judge evaluated the newly filed complaints and signaled that, unlike those earlier cases, the present suits might not withstand judicial scrutiny unless the claims were meaningfully strengthened.
In his assessment, Judge Rakoff criticized the language used in the complaints as overly broad, descriptive in conclusion rather than substance, and lacking the factual precision necessary to establish specific wrongdoing. Filed in October by the same group of attorneys, the new complaints were described as “frequently conclusory” and, in the judge’s words, “a model of high-pitched rhetoric.” He underscored that merely asserting knowledge or affiliation without clarifying who possessed that knowledge or what form the affiliation took left the allegations unacceptably vague. Addressing Boies directly, Rakoff explained that expressions such as “knows” or “affiliated,” when unaccompanied by contextual details or clear attribution, failed to meet legal standards of specificity.
As the hearing concluded, Judge Rakoff provided the plaintiffs’ attorneys with a two-week window to refine and amend their filings. He encouraged them to incorporate concrete details and factual evidence obtained through the ongoing discovery process. While the attorneys were permitted to use information already assembled during discovery, Rakoff directed them to pause any new depositions or subpoenas until he could issue a ruling. He indicated that his decision, potentially determining whether the cases proceed or are dismissed, could arrive by the end of January.
The contested lawsuits contend that both Bank of America and BNY Mellon effectively assisted Epstein’s criminal enterprise by maintaining his accounts, processing his transactions, and failing to act upon obvious warning signals — financial “red flags” that suggested illicit conduct. The allegations form part of the broader attempt to hold institutions accountable for enabling Epstein’s activities, particularly given that he continued to access banking services even after his 2008 conviction for soliciting minors. Epstein, a financier with extensive connections to political and business elites, died by suicide in 2019 while awaiting trial on new federal sex-trafficking charges. His closest associate, Ghislaine Maxwell, has since been convicted and is serving a 20-year prison sentence for facilitating his abuse of underage victims.
Monday’s hearing had been scheduled specifically to consider the banks’ motions to dismiss the lawsuits in their entirety. Charlotte Taylor, representing Bank of America through the firm Jones Day, argued that the plaintiffs’ filings merely recycled generalized statements and boilerplate language that lacked the factual core necessary to prove liability. She asserted that, at most, the bank had provided ordinary, legally permissible banking services and that the plaintiffs could not prove otherwise. Similarly, Felicia Ellsworth of WilmerHale, counsel for BNY Mellon, maintained that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that anyone within the institution possessed the requisite mental state — or “state of mind” — to establish criminal or civil culpability.
In defense of the plaintiffs’ position, Boies countered that the banks had ample reason to suspect misconduct. He argued that the numerous irregularities associated with Epstein’s accounts should have prompted the institutions to recognize that “there was smoke indicating a fire.” He added that Epstein’s past — including his Florida conviction and his long history of civil suits — was a matter of public record, implying that any diligent financial institution should have been aware of the risks inherent in maintaining their relationships with him.
Even as Boies pressed this argument, Judge Rakoff remained unconvinced that the plaintiffs had yet established a sufficient factual framework to sustain their claims. The judge reiterated that the narrative outlined in the complaints appeared too dependent on inference and lacked the specificity required to survive procedural scrutiny at this stage. “As far as I can tell,” he remarked pointedly, “that’s not enough to overcome a motion to dismiss. You must include concrete, particularized allegations supported by factual detail.”
Following the hearing, the plaintiffs’ legal team appeared cautiously optimistic about the opportunity to revise their filings. They indicated their intention to incorporate the evidence already obtained during discovery to strengthen the factual backbone of their allegations. Judge Rakoff also noted that any newly submitted material could be appropriately redacted when published in the public docket to protect sensitive information. Reflecting on the outcome of the hearing, Sigrid McCawley of Boies Schiller Flexner remarked in a statement to Business Insider, “I think he’s giving us a chance,” suggesting that, despite the judge’s skepticism, the path toward renewed filings still offered a potential avenue for the victims to pursue their claims against the powerful financial institutions allegedly connected to Epstein’s operations.
Sourse: https://www.businessinsider.com/epstein-victim-lawsuits-bank-of-america-bny-mellon-judge-skeptical-2025-12
