🔗 Share this article

For years, victims of Jeffrey Epstein have sought accountability. For a while, it seemed like they would get it.

Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s ex-girlfriend, was convicted of sex trafficking four years ago for her role in the late financier’s sexual abuse of underage females – and given to two decades behind bars.

Meanwhile, financial firms that had worked with Epstein, while not accepting fault, paid substantial sums in settlements to survivors. Donald Trump even made releasing the documents related to the Epstein probe part of his election promises, and doubled down on his commitment to do so in recent months.

Ultimately, Trump’s justice department did not make public these records, and his government has become involved in allegations about social ties between him and Epstein. Congressional promises to release files have stalled, due to political jockeying and justice department foot-dragging.

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

Lawsuits Target Leading Financial Institutions

These lawsuits, submitted by an unnamed accuser against Bank of America and the BNY Mellon, claim that these financial powerhouses illicitly enabled Epstein’s trafficking ring. The cases are led by attorney Sigrid McCawley, of Boies Schiller Flexner, and lawyer Brad Edwards of Edwards Henderson, who have consistently advocated for survivors of Epstein’s abuse.

“Epstein committed these crimes by means of not only his own extraordinary wealth and power, but through financial backing and monetary assistance from both individuals and institutions, including BNY,” one lawsuit claims. “Egregiously, the institution had a abundance of knowledge regarding Epstein’s trafficking network but chose profit over protecting the victims.”

The Bank of America suit mirrors these claims, declaring the institution “deliberately supplied 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 suit also said the bank neglected to file suspicious activity reports.

Legal Experts Offer Perspectives on Legal Hurdles

Experienced lawyers who commented on the matter said proving such a case would be difficult. But they also noted possible outcomes which could offer comfort to plaintiffs or release of long-sought information.

Neama Rahmani, a ex-government lawyer who established West Coast Trial lawyers, said proof has to show that an institution’s actions 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 legal redress and financial recovery,” Rahmani said. Some claims might be too tangential from a legal standpoint.

“The case hinges on proof,” he said. A attorney would need to prove cause and effect, which would mean “if not for the bank’s actions, the injury wouldn’t have happened”. In this case, that would translate to “absent the institution’s involvement, the victim maybe wouldn’t have been exploited”, the lawyer explained.

A lawyer would also have to go beyond a “but for” measure. “Is not just ‘but for’ causation. It also has to be a significant element: that is the legal test. 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 victim’s suffering.

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

Liability aside, such lawsuits could put institutions on notice that associations with those accused of wrongdoing can have damaging implications for them.

“It represents a reputational disaster,” he said. If the banks try to get these suits thrown out and are unsuccessful, Rahmani anticipates a swift settlement. “No party desires to pursue any of the Epstein-related cases.”

Eric Faddis, a trial attorney and founder of the legal practice Varner Faddis and former prosecutor, said corporations can be liable. In this situation, “whether the banks have liability is going to hinge, in part, on what the banks knew, if they were informed of claimed misconduct or illegal acts”, and in some way offered support to Epstein.

“But even then, I think it’s going to be difficult to effectively connect the banks into some kind of trafficking operation. The institutions would likely not be aware of the details of claims,” the lawyer said. While the financier’s prior legal case was known, “there’s no law against for a financial institution to have a client who’s an disreputable individual”.

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

Potential Benefits for Victims

Nevertheless, key elements of the litigation could assist Epstein survivors.

“These cases may uncover additional details about the ongoing Epstein saga,” the attorney said. “Even though there have been sort of walls put up at every turn for individuals seeking this information, when there’s a lawsuit, there’s a evidence-gathering phase, and that discovery process often requires release of materials that was not formerly available.”

Attorney Brad Edwards said in a statement 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 victims of the financier – as well as for potential targets who will be harmed from similar trafficking organizations – if our banks are not held accountable for the crucial part each plays, either in providing the required framework for the criminal enterprise or recognizing the monetary aspect of these crimes and putting an end to it.

Edwards continued: “Our prospects are significantly higher of making a real difference than Congress, because we understand the details and history of the matter and are not driven by partisan interests but rather by a genuine desire to make a real difference and to safeguard the victims, who have already endured immense pain.

“We approach these matters without any partisan motives and thus will not be swayed by shutdowns, shielding influential figures, 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 statement: “As Congress works toward unraveling how Jeffrey Epstein was able to conduct his illegal trafficking operation for decades without detection, we are taking another important step forward toward legal resolution 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 vigorously defend against it.”

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