Bank of America's $72 Million Epstein Settlement Heads to Final Approval
A federal judge will consider granting final approval to Bank of America's $72 million settlement with women who accused the bank of helping Jeffrey Epstein sexually abuse them.
4 reports on this incident · first at Aug 27, 2026, 5:15 p.m. ET
Earlier reports
Aug 27, 2026, 5:23 p.m. ET
Bank of America's $72 Million Epstein Settlement Heads to Final Approval
A federal judge will consider granting final approval to Bank of America's $72 million settlement with women who accused the bank of ignoring suspicious transactions by Jeffrey Epstein, according to abc7.com.
The settlement, which the bank consented to, resolves a civil lawsuit brought by the women. The judge's decision on final approval is pending.
Aug 27, 2026, 5:20 p.m. ET
Judge to Consider Final Approval of Bank of America's $72 Million Epstein Settlement
A federal judge will consider granting final approval to Bank of America's $72 million settlement with women who accused the bank of helping Jeffrey Epstein sexually abuse them, according to abc7.com.
The settlement, which the bank has consented to, is a civil resolution in a district court. The women had accused the bank of ignoring suspicious transactions by Epstein, abc7.com reported.
The judge's decision on final approval has not yet been made.
Aug 27, 2026, 5:15 p.m. ETFirst report
Judge to Consider Final Approval of Bank of America's $72 Million Epstein Settlement
A federal judge will consider granting final approval to Bank of America's $72 million settlement with women who accused the bank of helping Jeffrey Epstein sexually abuse them, according to abc7.com.
The settlement, which is a civil litigation release, was consented to by the parties. The women had accused the bank of ignoring suspicious transactions by Epstein, abc7.com reported.
The case is in district court. The judge's decision on final approval is pending.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
Revision history
- Version 127 Aug 2026, 21:53current
First published.
- Version 127 Aug 2026, 21:15current
First published.
- Version 127 Aug 2026, 21:20current
First published.
- Version 127 Aug 2026, 21:23current
First published.
How we work
This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.
Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.
Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.
None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.