Doe v. Bank of America N.A. and Bank of New York Mellon Corp., 819 F. Supp. 3d 314 (2026)

In the case Doe v. Bank of Am., N.A. and The Bank of New York Mellon Corp., 819 F. Supp. 3d 314 (2026), the plaintiff, Jane Doe, sued the defendants, Bank of America and Bank of New York, for violating the Trafficking Victims’ Protection Act (“TVPA”). The plaintiff asserted six claims against the defendants: participant liability, perpetrator liability, aiding and abetting, obstruction of TVPA enforcement, and two counts of negligence. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York found that the plaintiff abandoned counts two and three. The Court also found that the statute of limitations had expired for counts five and six, the two negligence counts. 

For the first count, participant liability, the Court analyzed three elements: participation, knowledge, and benefit. Under the TVPA, participation must be active, not simply passive facilitation. In the context of banking, active participation means that a financial institution provides more than its standard financial services. As such, the participation claim against Bank of America had merit because the bank intentionally facilitated transfers with suspicious monetary amounts and failed to file Suspicious Activity Reports (“SARs”) in a timely manner. The element of knowledge requires an adequate allegation that the defendant knew or should have known of Epstein’s misconduct while providing financial services. This claim likewise had merit because Bank of America facilitated suspicious transfers for Epstein and his co-conspirators, one of its employees had direct knowledge of Epstein’s criminal endeavors, and the bank did not conduct due diligence to investigate the news reports, civil lawsuits, and police reports of Epstein’s trafficking allegations. Finally, the benefit element requires that the defendant “knowingly benefited” from its participation in Epstein’s sex trafficking venture. The Court found that this requirement was also satisfied because Bank of America benefited financially from Epstein’s trafficking through interest, commission, and service fees, and knew that reporting Epstein would result in the loss of these financial benefits. The plaintiff did not satisfy the element of participation against Bank of New York because she did not allege any non-routine actions by the bank. Since the plaintiff did not satisfy the first element of count one, Participant Liability, the Court did not analyze the other two elements. Hence, the Court allowed the action against Bank of America to proceed, but dismissed the action against Bank of New York. For the obstruction of TVPA enforcement, the plaintiff relied on the claim that the defendants did not file SARs regarding Epstein’s suspicious transactions in a timely manner. In order to assert a claim of obstruction under the TVPA, the plaintiff must show that the defendant “knew of an effort to enforce the TVPA” and “intentionally obstructed or attempted to obstruct” such effort. The Court allowed the action against Bank of America to proceed. However, the Court dismissed the action against Bank of New York because the bank had filed hundreds of SARs shortly after Epstein’s arrest in 2019, which does not support an obstruction claim. Therefore, the Court ultimately allowed counts one and four to proceed against Bank of America, and dismissed all counts against Bank of New York. A settlement hearing scheduled for August 27, 2026. 

Topics

Geographical location

Keywords

Year

  • 2026

External URL

Court

Type

Jurisdiction