Which survivors declined payments from the Epstein Victims’ Compensation Program and pursued lawsuits instead?

1. The core fact: some claimants said “no” to the fund and kept suing

Multiple reporting threads agree that a subset of claimants rejected the program’s offers and resumed or preserved civil lawsuits against the estate and related entities; Brad Edwards, an attorney who represented many alleged survivors, estimated that eight to 10 of his clients declined awards and “moved forward” with litigation instead ^[1]. The New York Times likewise reported that “a few people had decided not to accept the awards,” noting those declinations allowed claimants to pursue lawsuits against the estate ^[2].

2. Why survivors refused: releases, scope and strategy

The Epstein fund required claimants who accepted money to sign broad releases that foreclosed further claims against the estate and, in several documented instances, forced claimants to drop civil suits against at least one alleged accomplice, Ghislaine Maxwell, as a condition of payment ^[1]. Advocates and some lawyers argued that taking an award could preclude broader accountability or separate claims against banks and other institutions, so for strategic or principled reasons—rather than simply monetary—some survivors opted to litigate ^{[4] [1]}.

3. Confidentiality limits what’s publicly known

Fund administrators promised confidentiality and anonymity for applicants, and the program’s structure and settlement protocols mean administrators declined to identify individual claimants who refused awards, leaving the public record vague about who specifically pursued lawsuits instead of taking fund payments ^{[2] [3]}. Reporting therefore can only rely on attorney estimates and aggregate descriptions rather than a list of individual names ^{[1] [2]}.

4. Litigation paths beyond the estate: banks and third parties

Some survivors pursued lawsuits not only against Epstein’s estate but also against financial institutions alleged to have enabled his abuse; for example, Jane Doe 1 pursued litigation that led to a reported settlement with JPMorgan that was described as benefiting her and other victims ^{[5] [6]}. Coverage indicates many plaintiffs in bank-related suits had previously engaged with the victims’ fund process, but public reporting does not uniformly tie named bank-plaintiffs to a documented refusal of the Epstein fund in each case ^{[6] [5]}.

5. Competing narratives: fund efficiency vs. litigation for accountability

Proponents of the independent compensation program argued it enabled many survivors to receive money quickly and allowed claimants outside statutes of limitations to be compensated, while critics and some lawyers warned the payouts were unevenly sized and potentially undercut broader civil litigation that might expose enabling actors ^{[4] [2]}. That tension helps explain why a modest number of claimants weighed taking guaranteed awards against the uncertain but potentially far-reaching gains of continued lawsuits ^{[4] [1]}.

6. Bottom line and limits of the public record

Reporting establishes that an identifiable but small group of claimants declined fund awards—attorney estimates hover around eight to 10, and sources repeatedly note “a few” survivors did so—but the identities of those survivors are not publicly disclosed by fund administrators, and media accounts do not provide a comprehensive, named list tied to explicit refusals ^{[1] [2]}. Any attempt to produce a roster of named individuals who rejected payments would exceed what the cited sources support.