A federal judge in New York has delivered a significant legal win to BNY Corp., dismissing all claims filed against the bank in a lawsuit brought by victims of Jeffrey Epstein. The case, which was filed as a proposed class-action lawsuit, accused major financial institutions of helping or benefiting from Epstein’s long-running sex-trafficking activities.
The decision sharply narrows the lawsuit and removes BNY Mellon completely from the case. At the same time, the court allowed two limited claims to continue against Bank of America Corp., while dismissing the majority of allegations made against it. The ruling marks a key moment in the legal process and clarifies how courts assess claims involving banks and criminal conduct by clients.
Judge Dismisses All Claims Against BNY Mellon
The ruling was issued by Jed Rakoff, a U.S. District Judge in New York. After reviewing the complaint, the judge concluded that the claims against Bank of New York Mellon did not meet the legal standards required to proceed.
New legal firestorm: Bank of America and BNY Mellon face claims of aiding Epstein’s secret empire
The victims alleged that BNY Mellon had provided banking services that indirectly supported Epstein’s illegal activities. However, the court found that the lawsuit failed to show that the bank knowingly participated in or benefited from the alleged crimes. Without clear allegations of intentional involvement, the claims could not move forward.
As a result, the judge dismissed all charges against BNY Mellon in full. This means the bank is no longer part of the lawsuit and does not face further legal action from this case at this stage.
Following the decision, Ryan Wells, speaking on behalf of BNY Mellon, said the ruling confirmed that the bank had no involvement in Epstein’s crimes. He also stated that the bank has strong sympathy for the victims and believes that Epstein’s actions should be thoroughly investigated and prosecuted through the justice system.
Mixed Outcome for Bank of America
While BNY Mellon was completely dismissed, the court took a more balanced approach with Bank of America. Out of six claims filed against the bank, four were dismissed by the judge. However, two claims were allowed to continue.
New legal firestorm: Bank of America and BNY Mellon face claims of aiding Epstein’s secret empire
These remaining claims focus on whether Bank of America knowingly benefited from Epstein’s conduct and whether it obstructed the enforcement of federal laws related to sex trafficking. At this point, the judge did not rule on whether these claims are true. Instead, the court decided that the allegations were strong enough to deserve further examination during later stages of the case.
A spokesperson for Bank of America, Bill Halldin, said the bank was pleased that most of the claims were dismissed. He also emphasized that the remaining claims have not yet been tested against evidence and that the facts behind them have not been fully reviewed by the court.
This distinction is important. Allowing claims to proceed does not mean the court believes the bank is responsible. It only means the claims meet the minimum legal threshold to continue in the judicial process.
What the Court Decision Shows
The ruling highlights how carefully courts examine lawsuits involving financial institutions. Banks often serve thousands of clients, and the law requires clear proof that a bank knowingly supported or benefited from illegal activities before it can be held responsible.
In the case of Bank of New York Mellon, the court found that such proof was missing. This led to a full dismissal and a clear legal victory for the bank. For Bank of America, the court determined that only a narrow part of the case could continue, while most allegations were rejected.
Money-laundering storm engulfs Toronto-Dominion Bank, shaking Canada’s
image of financial stability
The lawsuit itself was filed on behalf of victims who argue that large institutions should be held accountable if they ignore warning signs of criminal behavior. The judge’s decision shows that courts demand specific and detailed allegations, not broad accusations, especially in complex financial cases.
This development reshapes the lawsuit by limiting the number of defendants and narrowing the legal issues under review. It also sets clear boundaries on what claims are legally acceptable at this stage of the proceedings, ensuring that only allegations meeting strict legal standards move forward.
