Investor Fraud
Voutsiotis v. PNC Bank
Date: June 8, 2026
Issue: Whether the district court erred by dismissing a lawsuit alleging PNC Bank violated the Ohio Uniform Fiduciary Act by knowingly facilitating an investment advisor’s fraud by processing allegedly suspicious banking transactions.
Case Summary: In a unanimous decision, a Sixth Circuit panel affirmed dismissal of a lawsuit alleging PNC Bank facilitated an investment advisor’s multimillion-dollar fraud by processing allegedly suspicious banking transactions.
In October 2023, a group of investors (Plaintiffs) sued PNC Bank, alleging the bank and its employee, Demetrio Koutrodimos, knowingly facilitated an investment advisor’s fraud by approving and processing suspicious transactions. According to Plaintiffs, investment advisor Constantine Antonas founded Antonas Capital Management and Epitome Investment Fund in 2013, raised millions of dollars from investors, and maintained several accounts at PNC Bank. Antonas allegedly lost millions of dollars in investor funds and concealed the losses by falsifying financial records.
In October 2021, Antonas died before meeting with investors to explain the missing funds. Plaintiffs alleged PNC knowingly processed Antonas’s transactions despite their conflict with his stated business activities. Plaintiffs brought claims under the Ohio Uniform Fiduciary Act, as well as for negligence, fraud, civil liability for criminal acts, civil conspiracy, and aiding and abetting fraud.
PNC removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, arguing that Plaintiffs had no colorable claim against Koutrodimos. Because Koutrodimos was the only Ohio defendant, PNC argued the case belonged in federal court if Plaintiffs had a colorable claim against him. A colorable claim is a legal claim that appears plausible and could succeed if the plaintiff proves the alleged facts. Judge J. Philip Calabrese agreed, denied Plaintiffs’ motion to remand the case to state court, dismissed Koutrodimos from the lawsuit, and granted PNC’s motion to dismiss after concluding that Plaintiffs failed to state a claim.
On appeal, the panel ruled that the district court properly denied Plaintiffs’ motion to remand the case to state court because Plaintiffs failed to bring a plausible claim against Koutrodimos, the only Ohio defendant. Plaintiffs argued that Koutrodimos’s presence required the case to remain in state court. The panel disagreed, explaining that the complaint did not plausibly allege that Koutrodimos knowingly participated in Antonas’s fraud, made fraudulent misrepresentations, or had a duty to disclose Antonas’s allegedly suspicious transactions.
Next, the panel ruled the district court properly dismissed the remaining claims against PNC under the Ohio Uniform Fiduciary Act. The panel explained the Act shields banks from liability for processing a fiduciary’s transactions unless the bank acted with actual knowledge of the fiduciary’s fraud or in bad faith. According to the panel, Plaintiffs alleged only that PNC should have recognized red flags, not that the bank actually knew about Antonas’s fraud or deliberately ignored obvious misconduct. The panel concluded routine banking services, including wire transfers, cashier’s checks, and cash withdrawals, did not plausibly establish actual knowledge or bad faith. Accordingly, the Ohio Uniform Fiduciary Act barred Plaintiffs’ claims against PNC.
Finally, the panel ruled Plaintiffs’ claims would fail even if the Ohio Uniform Fiduciary Act did not bar them. The panel explained Plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege negligence because PNC owed no duty of care to noncustomers, and it failed to plead fraud with the specificity required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b). The panel also concluded Plaintiffs failed to allege that PNC acted with the criminal intent necessary to support their claim for civil liability for criminal acts. The panel reiterated that Ohio does not recognize a claim for aiding and abetting fraud, and that Plaintiffs’ remaining statutory and civil conspiracy claims failed because the complaint did not plausibly allege any underlying unlawful conduct.
Bottom Line: The panel’s decision confirms that allegations of suspicious banking activity alone do not state a viable claim against a bank under the Ohio Uniform Fiduciary Act.
Document: Opinion
