In Re Agape Litigation, 773 F. Supp. 2d 298

Plaintiffs allege Bank of America aided and abetted Nicholas Cosmo's Ponzi scheme through Agape entities and related accounts.
Agape raised about $400 million from investors from 2003–2009, but loan activity was minimal and funds funded Cosmo's lifestyle and commodities trading.
BOA dismissed in Agape I certain claims; plaintiffs were allowed to amend to address aiding/abetting fraud and fiduciary-duty claims.
Second Amended Complaints add detail on the so-called Agape Branch, the structure of Agape accounts, and BOA’s due diligence, RDS issuance, and monitoring of Cosmo/Agape activity.
Court grants BOA’s Rule 12(b)(6) and 9(b) dismissal of all aiding/abetting claims against BOA in full.
Court reasons that plaintiffs fail to plead actual knowledge, substantial assistance, or a strong inference of fraud, based on current standards for aiding/abetting fraud and breach of fiduciary duty.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plaintiffs plausibly plead actual knowledge by BOA.	Plaintiffs contend BOA actively reviewed accounts and knew of fraud.	BOA argues alleged facts show only constructive knowledge or no knowledge at all.	No plausible actual knowledge pleaded.
Whether conscious avoidance supports actual knowledge of the fraud.	Plaintiffs claim BOA consciously avoided confirming facts to conceal fraud.	BOA contends such avoidance is not shown and decisions were policy-based, not intent to avoid fraud.	Conscious avoidance not established.
Whether plaintiffs plead a strong inference of fraud based on motive and opportunity.	BOA earned substantial fees and commissions; Sullivan/Campagnuolo incentives allegedly indicate motive.	Fees and relationships are insufficient to show concrete fraudulent intent beyond ordinary business interests.	No strong inference of fraud shown.
Whether plaintiffs adequately plead substantial assistance by BOA.	Account structuring, RDS, and account monitoring facilitated the fraud.	These are ordinary banking activities; no proximate cause or substantive assistance shown.	No substantial assistance proven.
Whether the aiding and abetting claims based on breach of fiduciary duty and conversion are viable.	BOA knowingly participated in Agape's misappropriation of funds.	Bank had no duty to monitor fiduciary accounts and no actual knowledge of the precise scope of investments.	Dismissed; no plausible aiding/abetting breach or conversion.

Renner III, 85 Fed.Appx. 782 (2d Cir. 2004) (insufficient actual knowledge required for aiders and abettors even with close relationships)