Bank of America's Convenient Wage Hike: Don't Let it Distract You From the Epstein Lawsuit

You have to hand it to Bank of America. The timing is just… exquisite. One minute, you’re reading a press release about how they’re a shining beacon of corporate responsibility, a Fortune "100 Best Company to Work For," magnanimously bumping their minimum wage to $25 an hour. The next, you’re reading headlines like Bank of America sued over alleged financial ties to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

It's the kind of whiplash that should come with a neck brace.

On one hand, we have BofA's Chief People Officer, Sheri Bronstein, telling us how their rising salary "provides opportunities for our teammates to build a long-term career." It's all about "American economic growth and opportunity." You can almost hear the soaring orchestral music in the background. It’s a beautiful, heartwarming story.

And on the other hand, you have a Jane Doe lawsuit, filed by the same lawyer who wrangled a $290 million settlement out of JPMorgan Chase for its role in the Epstein saga, claiming BofA was one of the "complicit financial banking institutions" that helped the monster operate.

So which is it? Is Bank of America a caring, paternalistic employer building a better future for its workers, or is it a soulless machine that allegedly ignored glaring red flags of human trafficking to keep a high-value client happy? Can it be both?

The Great Corporate Magic Trick

Let's be real. This PR push isn't about their employees. Not really. It’s a classic misdirection play. It’s like a magician furiously waving a bright, shiny flag in one hand so you don’t notice what the other hand is doing. And right now, BofA’s other hand is trying to swat away a lawsuit that contains some of the ugliest allegations you can level at an institution.

The lawsuit claims that Epstein's accountant literally instructed a victim to open a BofA account, which was then used for "incredibly alarming and erratic banking behavior" that should have set off every alarm bell in the building. We're talking about transactions that, according to the complaint, "would have in fact been impossible based on Jane Doe's income or typical pattern of deposit." Banks are legally required to file Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) for this exact reason. They are, as Rep. Jamie Raskin put it, the "first line of defense."

Yet, the lawsuit alleges BofA failed to file these reports until after Epstein was dead. The New York Times reported they finally filed two SARs in 2020—years after the fact—related to $170 million in payments. It’s a bad look. No, 'bad' doesn't cover it—this is a five-alarm dumpster fire of corporate negligence, if the allegations hold up.

And what’s the bank’s response to this? "No immediate comment" on the lawsuit. But hey, look over here! We’re giving our tellers a raise! We offer 26 weeks of parental leave! We’re one of People Magazine’s "100 Companies That Care"! It's so transparent it’s almost insulting. They are betting, and betting big, that the average person will see the headline about $25 an hour and completely miss the one about facilitating a sex trafficking ring. It's a deeply cynical calculation about the public's attention span.

This whole song and dance reminds me of my old landlord who would ignore the massive water leak in my ceiling but make a big show of replacing the lobby welcome mat. The priorities are just… something else. What is the internal calculus for this? Do they have a meeting where they weigh the cost of a class-action settlement against the PR budget for touting their employee benefits?

The Revolving Door of Oblivion

And just to add another layer of grime to the whole affair, what happens to the executives at these places? Do they face any consequences? Offcourse not. While BofA is getting sued, one of its veteran investment bankers, Kevin Brunner, is casually getting appointed as the next global chair of investment banking at JPMorgan Chase, a move covered in articles like JPMorgan snags BofA vet as investment banking chair. You know, the other bank that already paid out nearly $300 million for its own Epstein connections.

The whole system is a hermetically sealed loop. One guy leaves a bank embroiled in a horrific scandal to take a top job at another bank that just settled a nearly identical one. There's no accountability, just a perpetual game of musical chairs played in corner offices high above the city. The machine just keeps churning, and the names on the letterhead are interchangeable parts.

It’s this complete detachment from reality that gets me. The world of corporate PR and the world where these crimes happen don’t seem to overlap. In one world, you write glowing copy about your "award-winning onboarding" and "culture rooted in opportunity." In the other, you're being investigated by Congress for your relationship with a convicted sex offender. How do the people who work there reconcile this? Do they just put up a mental firewall, cash their (very large) paychecks, and try not to think about where the money comes from?

Maybe I'm the crazy one. Maybe this is just how the world works now. You create a thick enough smokescreen of corporate-speak, you throw enough money at branding and "social responsibility" initiatives, and you can get away with anything. The lawsuit alleges BofA chose profit over people. Their PR strategy seems to be proving it.

They Really Think We're Idiots

At the end of the day, this is about one thing: contempt. Contempt for the victims, contempt for the legal system, and most of all, contempt for our intelligence. The sheer audacity of rolling out a feel-good wage-hike story while your legal team is bracing for a fight over your alleged role in facilitating human trafficking is breathtaking. They aren't just trying to manage a crisis; they're trying to pretend it doesn't exist. They believe we're all stupid enough to fall for it, that a shiny object will distract us from the darkness. And the truly terrifying part? They might be right.