🔗 Share this article

Over many years, survivors of the late financier Jeffrey Epstein have sought justice. For a while, it appeared like they would get it.

Ghislaine Maxwell, the financier’s one-time partner, was convicted of human trafficking four years ago for her involvement in the late financier’s sexual abuse of underage females – and given to 20 years imprisonment.

Meanwhile, banks that had worked with Epstein, while not accepting fault, agreed to pay substantial sums in settlements to victims. Former President Trump even made releasing the Epstein investigative files part of his election promises, and doubled down on his commitment to do so early this year.

In the end, Trump’s justice department did not release these records, and his administration has become embroiled in allegations about social ties between him and Epstein. Congressional promises to disclose documents have stalled, due to political jockeying and delays from federal authorities.

However two new lawsuits could shed light on Epstein’s operations amid the deadlock – regardless of their outcome.

Legal Actions Target Leading Financial Institutions

These lawsuits, filed by an unnamed accuser against Bank of America and the BNY Mellon, allege that these financial powerhouses illicitly enabled Epstein’s sex trafficking. The cases are helmed by attorney Sigrid McCawley, of Boies Schiller Flexner, and Brad Edwards of Edwards Henderson, who have long represented survivors of Epstein’s abuse.

“The financier carried out these offenses by means of not only his own extraordinary wealth and influence, but through financial backing and financial support from both individuals and organizations, including the bank,” one lawsuit claims. “Shockingly, the institution had a plethora of information regarding Epstein’s trafficking network but opted for financial gain over protecting the victims.”

The complaint against Bank of America echoes these allegations, declaring the institution “knowingly provided the financial support and the veneer of institutional legitimacy for Epstein and his co-conspirators to support their international sex trafficking organization under the guise of legal commercial dealings”. The legal action also said the bank failed to file suspicious activity reports.

Legal Experts Offer Perspectives on Legal Hurdles

Longtime attorneys who commented on the matter said establishing liability would be difficult. But they also identified potential results which could provide solace to plaintiffs or disclosure 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 led to 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 explanations and criminal justice and financial recovery,” Rahmani said. Certain allegations might be not directly related from a juridical perspective.

“It all comes down to evidence,” he said. A lawyer would need to prove causation, which would mean “if not for the bank’s actions, the injury wouldn’t have occurred”. In this case, that would translate to “but for the bank’s conduct, the survivor maybe wouldn’t have been exploited”, Rahmani clarified.

A lawyer would also have to go further than a “but for” measure. “It’s not solely about indirect cause. It also has to be a significant element: that is the legal test. So whatever misconduct there was, if there was any misconduct … the defendant’s misconduct has to have been a key contributor in leading to the plaintiff harm.

“By engaging in a business relationship with Epstein, is that a substantial factor? I don’t know.”

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

“It’s a PR nightmare,” Rahmani noted. If the financial institutions try to get these cases thrown out and fail, the attorney expects a swift settlement. “No party desires to pursue any of the legal matters tied to Epstein.”

Eric Faddis, a trial attorney and principal of the Colorado law firm his firm and former prosecutor, said companies can be responsible. In this situation, “whether the banks have liability is going to hinge, in part, on their level of awareness, if they were informed of claimed misconduct or criminal wrongdoing”, and somehow provided assistance to Epstein.

“However, even in that case, I think it’s going to be hard to effectively connect the banks into some kind of sex-trafficking scheme. The institutions would likely not be privy to the particulars of claims,” the lawyer said. While Epstein’s Florida conviction was public, “it’s not illegal for a financial institution to have a client who’s an unsavory person”.

“However, it is unlawful for a financial firm to somehow be complicit in the criminal activity of a customer, but these aspects are very different, and so I think that it’s going to be a difficult case against the institutions.”

Potential Benefits for Victims

Nevertheless, key elements of the legal proceedings could assist Epstein survivors.

“The lawsuits have the potential to reveal more information about the ongoing Epstein saga,” the attorney said. “Despite the fact that there have been sort of walls put up at every turn for folks pursuing this information, when there’s a lawsuit, there’s a evidence-gathering phase, and that legal procedure often requires release of information that was not formerly available.”

Edwards said in a comment that the suits could have a deterrent effect and achieve what legislators have failed to do.

“The lawsuits are necessary for complete justice for the survivors of Jeffrey Epstein – as well as for future would-be victims who will suffer from similar trafficking organizations – if our banks are not held accountable for the essential role each plays, either in providing the required framework for the criminal enterprise or identifying the monetary aspect of these offenses and stopping it.

He added: “Our prospects are significantly higher of making a real difference than Congress, because we know the facts and background of the case and are not driven by politics but rather by a genuine desire to make a real difference and to protect the survivors, who have already endured immense pain.

“Our handling of these issues without any partisan motives and thus cannot be deterred by shutdowns, protecting wealthy politically connected individuals, or the other embarrassing partisan gamesmanship you and the rest of the world have had to observe recently.”

McCawley said in a statement: “As Congress works toward unraveling how Jeffrey Epstein was able to conduct his criminal sex-trafficking enterprise for decades without detection, we are taking another important step forward toward justice for victims.”

Institutional Reactions

When requested for a statement on the lawsuit, BNY said: “The allegations in the case are baseless, and we will vigorously defend against it.”

The bank’s response similarly remarked: “We will vigorously defend ourselves in this case.”