Judge Rakoff Lets Epstein Victim's Trafficking Lawsuit Against FirstBank Puerto Rico Proceed

Since Judge Jed Rakoff of the Southern District of New York issued his Sept. 25, 2026 order partly denying FirstBank's motion to dismiss, the open question has been why. His written opinion in Molchonova v. FirstBank Puerto Rico & First Bancorp now supplies the answer.

The short version: the plaintiff alleged more than routine banking, and that was enough to get past the pleading stage.

What the plaintiff alleges

Julia Molchonova says she is one of Jeffrey Epstein's victims. She sued on behalf of a putative class of victims and alleges that FirstBank participated in and benefited from Epstein's criminal enterprise, in violation of federal and local law.

As alleged in the complaint, FirstBank maintained dozens of accounts for Epstein, his entities and his agents. It allegedly facilitated millions of dollars in transfers to and from those accounts. It also allegedly served as a banking reference when Epstein sought to charter his own bank.

The complaint says those services were "integral in helping [Epstein] fuel his international sex trafficking operation."

These are allegations. Nothing has been proven, and no court has found that FirstBank did anything unlawful.

The legal test

The claim runs under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act. The statute imposes civil liability on a person or entity that knowingly benefits financially from participating in a venture it knew or should have known violated the law.

Rakoff laid out three elements for participant liability:

• The defendant participated in a commercial sex trafficking venture.
• The defendant knew or should have known the venture involved force, threats, fraud or coercion, or involved sex with minors.
• The defendant benefited from that participation.

The court was explicit that a bank is not liable simply for being a bank. In the opinion's words, Molchonova "must allege more than that FirstBank provide[d] routine banking services to the Epstein venture."

Why the claim survived

Rakoff concluded she did. The opinion describes an "extensive, longstanding, and continuous relationship" between the bank and Epstein.

According to the complaint, FirstBank opened and maintained more than 30 accounts for Epstein and related entities over more than two decades. The complaint alleges those accounts were used to pay victims and to circulate millions of dollars among Epstein-related entities and individuals.

It also alleges FirstBank processed millions of dollars in payments from Epstein's personal accounts to FirstBank accounts held by entities tied to him and his known associates. Several of those entities, the complaint says, owned the properties where much of the trafficking and abuse took place. Others allegedly made payments to victims.

Rakoff found that activity "more than routine." That is a ruling that the complaint is sufficient to proceed, not a finding of fact about what the bank did or why.

What this ruling does not decide

The September 25 order granted FirstBank's motion in part and denied it in part. The Trafficking Victims Protection Act participation claim is the part that goes forward.

The case is also a putative class action. No class has been certified.

The hard issue is the knowledge element. A bank can be liable only if it knew or should have known the venture involved coercion, fraud or minors, and that is what the case will turn on.

A familiar defendant pattern

FirstBank is not the first financial institution to face Epstein-related claims in Rakoff's courtroom. The judge entered final judgment approving a $72.5 million settlement by Bank of America with women who accused that bank of helping facilitate Epstein's trafficking, following an Aug. 27 approval hearing.

That settlement resolved a different bank's case on its own facts. It says nothing about how FirstBank's will end.

For Epstein's victims, banks are a logical target. Epstein's operation needed money moved, properties paid for and victims paid off, and all of that ran through financial institutions. Whether a particular bank crossed from servicing accounts into knowing participation is a fact question that discovery and, if it gets that far, a jury would have to answer.

For FirstBank, the motion to dismiss was the cheapest exit, and it did not work on this claim. The next fight is over what the bank's records and employees show it knew about the accounts it kept open for more than 20 years.