A federal judge in New York has allowed a lawsuit against FirstBank Puerto Rico and its parent, First Bancorp, to proceed. The Russian plaintiff, Julia Molchonova, alleges that the bank provided banking services to Jeffrey Epstein and people associated with him for more than 20 years, helping sustain his sex-trafficking operation through its handling of accounts and transactions.
The ruling does not determine whether the bank is liable. It establishes that the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York can hear parts of Molchonova’s claims. The case puts the bank’s handling of transfers and accounts, and its response to potential warning signs, at issue—matters with broader relevance to financial institutions’ oversight of high-risk clients and their anti-money-laundering and customer due-diligence practices.
Judge rejects FirstBank’s jurisdiction and venue arguments
U.S. District Judge Jed S. Rakoff rejected FirstBank’s arguments that the New York court lacked personal jurisdiction over it and that New York was an improper venue. He allowed some claims under the federal Trafficking Victims Protection Act and the New York City Gender-Motivated Violence Act to proceed.
Rakoff dismissed the plaintiff’s allegation that the bank actively obstructed enforcement of trafficking laws. The ruling said that part of the case could be revisited depending on the outcome of an appeal in a separate New York case. The court is expected to issue a fuller opinion explaining its reasoning soon.
Molchonova had previously filed court papers under the name “Jane Doe.” In June, she sued FirstBank Puerto Rico, which has about $19.2 billion in assets, and First Bancorp on behalf of a proposed class. She alleges that she was sexually assaulted more than 100 times between 2011 and 2019. She is seeking unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, as well as injunctive and declaratory relief.
Complaint details more than two decades of banking ties
The complaint says FirstBank was one of Epstein’s longest-standing banking partners, maintaining a relationship from 1998 until at least 2020. It alleges that the bank held more than 30 commercial, checking and personal accounts for Epstein, his associates and related holding entities. In 2016, Epstein’s combined average balances at FirstBank exceeded $5.3 million, according to the complaint.
Molchonova argues that the bank benefited from transaction fees, account balances and customer referrals, while its financial services helped sustain trafficking and abuse. The complaint also alleges that FirstBank failed to conduct adequate “know your customer” checks and overlooked potential red flags, including round-number wire transfers, movements of funds among affiliated entities and large cash withdrawals.
One transaction cited in the filing involved $10.9 million. The money was first deposited into an account at FirstBank belonging to Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell, then transferred the following day to Maxwell’s account at JPMorganChase and later dispersed to accounts controlled by Epstein. The plaintiff argues that the transaction formed part of a broader pattern that should have prompted internal scrutiny.
The complaint further contends that public risks, including criminal proceedings involving Epstein, should have led the bank to increase its monitoring or end the banking relationship. It also alleges that FirstBank failed to file suspicious activity reports with federal authorities in a timely manner.
FirstBank says it provided routine services
FirstBank and First Bancorp deny the allegations and asked the court to dismiss the case in August. FirstBank says it provided only routine banking services and did not know about or actively participate in Epstein’s crimes.
The bank argues that processing wire transfers, opening accounts and waiving ordinary account fees do not amount to participation in sex trafficking. Its lawyers also say the complaint does not identify any FirstBank employee who knew Epstein was trafficking people or had contact with victims.
FirstBank has also challenged references in the complaint to certain regulatory enforcement actions and consent orders, arguing that the actions described did not exist and that the claims undermine the filing’s credibility. Court filings by the bank show that FirstBank submitted a suspicious activity report 11 days after Epstein’s arrest in 2019. The plaintiff maintains that the report was still filed too late.
The ruling addresses only whether the lawsuit may continue; it does not decide whether FirstBank assisted trafficking, violated the law or owes damages. The court’s full opinion, evidence gathering and any appeals will shape whether the allegations are ultimately supported.