🔗 Share this article

Over many years, victims of Jeffrey Epstein have demanded justice. At one point, it appeared like they would get it.

Epstein’s former associate Ghislaine Maxwell, the financier’s one-time partner, was found guilty of sex trafficking four years ago for her involvement in the late financier’s sexual abuse of underage females – and sentenced to two decades behind bars.

At the same time, banks that had worked with Epstein, although not accepting fault, paid hundreds of millions in settlements to survivors. Donald Trump even made releasing the documents related to the Epstein probe part of his campaign platform, and doubled down on his promise to do so in recent months.

Ultimately, Trump’s justice department did not make public these files, and his government has become involved in reports about social ties between him and Epstein. Assurances from lawmakers to release files have stalled, due to partisan maneuvering and justice department foot-dragging.

But recent legal actions could shed light on Epstein’s activities amid the stalemate – regardless of their outcome.

Lawsuits Aim at Leading Financial Institutions

These lawsuits, filed by an unnamed accuser against Bank of America and the Bank of New York Mellon (BNY), allege that these banking giants illicitly enabled Epstein’s trafficking ring. The suits are led by Sigrid S McCawley, of Boies Schiller Flexner, and lawyer Brad Edwards of Edwards Henderson, who have long represented Epstein victims.

“The financier carried out these offenses by means of not only his own vast fortune and power, but through financial backing and financial support from both private parties and organizations, including the bank,” one lawsuit claims. “Egregiously, the institution had a abundance of knowledge regarding Epstein’s trafficking network but chose profit over safeguarding those harmed.”

The complaint against Bank of America mirrors these claims, declaring the institution “deliberately supplied the monetary resources and the appearance of respectability for Epstein and his accomplices to fuel their international sex trafficking organization under the guise of legal commercial dealings”. The legal action also said the bank neglected to file suspicious activity reports.

Attorneys Weigh In on Case Challenges

Experienced lawyers who spoke to the matter said proving such a case would be challenging. But they also identified potential results which could provide solace to plaintiffs or release of previously hidden details.

Neama Rahmani, a ex-government lawyer who established a legal firm, said proof has to show that an bank’s conduct resulted in harm.

“In my view, the case faces significant obstacles – and obviously I am on the side of the victims, and I want them to get answers and legal redress and compensation,” the attorney said. Some claims might be not directly related from a juridical perspective.

“The case hinges on proof,” he said. A lawyer would need to prove causation, which would mean “if not for the bank’s actions, the injury wouldn’t have happened”. In this case, that would translate to “but for the bank’s conduct, the survivor maybe wouldn’t have been trafficked”, the lawyer clarified.

A lawyer would also have to go further than a basic causation test. “Is not just ‘but for’ causation. It also has to be a significant element: that is the standard. So whatever misconduct there was, if there was any wrongdoing … the defendant’s misconduct has to have been a substantial factor in leading to the plaintiff harm.

“By engaging in a business relationship with Epstein, is that a substantial factor? It’s uncertain.”

Liability aside, suits like this could put institutions on notice that relationships with those accused of wrongdoing can have negative consequences for them.

“It represents a reputational disaster,” he said. If the banks try to get these suits thrown out and fail, the attorney expects a quick resolution. “No party desires to pursue any of the Epstein-related cases.”

Attorney Eric Faddis, a trial attorney and principal of the Colorado law firm his firm and ex-government lawyer, said corporations can be liable. In this situation, “if the institutions bear fault is going to hinge, in part, on their level of awareness, if they were informed of alleged abuse or illegal acts”, and in some way offered support to Epstein.

“But even then, I think it’s going to be difficult to sort of loop the financial entities into some kind of trafficking operation. The banks would likely not be aware of the details of allegations,” Faddis said. While Epstein’s Florida conviction was known, “it’s not illegal for a bank to have a client who’s an disreputable individual”.

“It is illegal for a financial firm to in any way be complicit in the illegal actions of a client, but those two issues are very different, and so I think that it’s going to be a difficult case against the institutions.”

Potential Benefits for Victims

That said, important aspects of the litigation could help those affected by Epstein.

“These cases may uncover additional details about the continuing Epstein story,” Faddis said. “Even though there have been obstacles erected at every turn for individuals pursuing this information, when there’s a legal action, there’s a discovery process, and that discovery process often mandates release of information that was not previously public.”

Edwards said in a statement that the lawsuits could have a deterrent effect and achieve what lawmakers have been unable to do.

“Legal actions are essential for full accountability for the survivors of the financier – as well as for future would-be victims who will be harmed from similar trafficking organizations – if our banks are not made responsible for the crucial part each plays, either in providing the necessary infrastructure for the illegal operation or identifying the monetary aspect of these crimes and putting an end to it.

He added: “Our prospects are significantly higher of making a real difference than lawmakers, because we understand the details and background of the case and are not motivated by politics but rather by a genuine desire to create substantial impact and to safeguard the survivors, who have already endured immense pain.

“We approach these matters without any political agenda and thus cannot be deterred by obstructions, protecting wealthy politically connected individuals, or the other embarrassing partisan gamesmanship you and the rest of the world have had to watch unfold recently.”

Attorney Sigrid McCawley said in a declaration: “As Congress works toward unraveling how the financier was able to orchestrate his illegal trafficking operation for many years without detection, we are taking another important step forward toward justice for survivors.”

Bank Responses

Asked for comment on the legal complaint, the Bank of New York Mellon said: “The claims in the lawsuit are meritless, and we will strongly contest against it.”

Bank of America’s statement likewise stated: “We intend to firmly protect our interests in this matter.”