How were claimants allocated between the JPMorgan $290M settlement fund and the Deutsche Bank $75M settlement — what were the eligibility rules?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
The two bank settlements split responsibility largely by the periods when Jeffrey Epstein banked with each institution: JPMorgan’s $290 million resolved claims tied to Epstein’s earlier relationship with JPMorgan, while Deutsche Bank’s $75 million covered victims allegedly trafficked during Epstein’s years as a Deutsche client (2013–2018) [1] [2]. Specific per‑claimant awards for the Deutsche Bank deal were reported to range from about $75,000 to $5 million; the public record assembled by reporting and law‑firm notices does not detail a fully transparent, published formula for how the JPMorgan $290 million was divided among claimants [2] [3] [1].
1. How the settlements were split by bank relationship windows
The reporting makes clear that allocation between the two settlements tracked the timeline of Epstein’s banking relationships: Epstein was a JPMorgan client up to about 2013, and a Deutsche Bank client from roughly 2013 through 2018, and the two settlements were framed around harms that allegedly occurred while he was a customer of each bank [1] [4] [2]. That chronological separation was the practical organizing principle for which victims could look to which bank’s fund for recovery, rather than a single pooled global fund across both defendants [1] [2].
2. Who was eligible under the Deutsche Bank settlement and how awards were described
Coverage of the Deutsche Bank $75 million settlement specifies eligibility for “Epstein victims who were ensnared in his sex trafficking ring from 2013 to 2018 while he was a Deutsche Bank customer,” and reporting indicated individual awards would range from about $75,000 up to $5 million, according to sources cited by Banking Dive and other outlets [2]. Deutsche Bank’s spokesperson declined public comment in the immediate aftermath [2]. The published descriptions therefore suggest a time‑limited eligibility window tied to Deutsche Bank’s customer relationship and a large variance in per‑claimant awards reflective of individualized evaluations or tiering [2].
3. What is known about eligibility and allocation under the JPMorgan $290M deal
JPMorgan’s $290 million settlement was approved to resolve claims by a class of Epstein survivors and was described as covering dozens of accusers — reporting placed the class at “as many as 100 women or more” though exact class membership and award amounts per claimant were not publicly itemized in the news stories provided [1]. The settlement received final judicial approval and was handled by counsel including Boies Schiller Flexner, which publicly noted the deal and the related attorney fee awards but did not disclose a line‑by‑line claimant allocation in the material cited [3] [5]. Therefore, while eligibility appears tied to alleged abuse during Epstein’s JPMorgan‑client period, the public reporting here does not disclose a precise per‑claimant schedule or the apportionment methodology for the $290 million pool [1] [3].
4. Fees, dismissals and limits that affected the pots of money
Court filings and law‑firm announcements show that both settlements moved through judicial review with attorneys seeking and receiving substantial fee awards — for example, Boies Schiller requested a 30% fee award for the Deutsche settlement and similar awards were noted in the JPMorgan matter — which reduces the net recovery available to claimants and is part of the public docketed structure of the deals [3]. Reporting also notes that several claims against both banks had been dismissed earlier in the litigation cycle, undercutting potential class size and thus affecting per‑claimant calculus [2].
5. What reporters and the public still lack — limits of the record
None of the cited public reports or firm notices in this collection publish a full, transparent distribution formula for the $290 million JPMorgan fund — the material documents the class settlement, judicial approval, approximate class size, and that Deutsche’s deal applied to the 2013–2018 window with reported per‑claimant ranges, but it does not provide the precise matrix by which individual payments from the JPMorgan pool were calculated or how overlapping claims (if any) between the two funds were resolved in practice [1] [2] [3]. Absent the settlement exhibits or the claims administrator’s detailed plan in the public excerpts here, reporting cannot authoritatively state the step‑by‑step allocation mechanism for the JPMorgan fund beyond its classwide scope and judicial approval [3] [1].