🔗 Share this article

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

Epstein’s former associate Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s ex-girlfriend, was found guilty of human trafficking in a 2021 trial for her involvement in the late financier’s exploitation of teen girls – and sentenced to 20 years imprisonment.

Meanwhile, banks that had worked with Epstein, although not accepting fault, paid hundreds of millions in agreements to survivors. Donald Trump even made disclosing the Epstein investigative files part of his election promises, and doubled down on his promise to do so in recent months.

Ultimately, Trump’s justice department did not release these records, and his administration has become embroiled in reports about social ties between him and Epstein. Assurances from lawmakers to disclose documents have lagged, due to political jockeying and delays from federal authorities.

However recent legal actions could shed light on Epstein’s activities amid the deadlock – irrespective of their result.

Lawsuits Aim at 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 a prominent law firm, and Brad Edwards of Edwards Henderson, who have consistently advocated for survivors of Epstein’s abuse.

“The financier carried out these offenses by means of not only his own vast fortune and power, but through access to funding and monetary assistance from both individuals and organizations, including the bank,” the legal filing claims. “Egregiously, BNY had a abundance of knowledge regarding Epstein’s sex trafficking operation but opted for financial gain over safeguarding those harmed.”

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 fuel their global trafficking enterprise under the pretext of non-criminal business activities”. The legal action also said the bank failed to file suspicious activity reports.

Attorneys Weigh In on Case Challenges

Experienced lawyers who spoke to the situation said establishing liability would be challenging. But they also identified possible outcomes which could offer comfort to plaintiffs or disclosure of previously hidden details.

Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor who founded a legal firm, said proof has to show that an institution’s actions resulted in harm.

“In my view, the case faces significant obstacles – and obviously I am on the side of the survivors, and I want them to get answers and criminal justice and financial recovery,” Rahmani said. Certain allegations might be not directly related from a juridical perspective.

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

A lawyer would also have to go further than a basic causation test. “It’s not solely about indirect cause. It also has to be a substantial factor: that is the standard. So any improper behavior there was, if there was any wrongdoing … the defendant’s misconduct has to have been a key contributor in leading to the plaintiff harm.

“Through maintaining financial ties to Epstein, is that a substantial factor? It’s uncertain.”

Regardless of legal responsibility, such lawsuits could serve as a warning that relationships with those accused of wrongdoing can have damaging implications for them.

“It represents a reputational disaster,” Rahmani noted. If the financial institutions try to get these cases thrown out and are unsuccessful, Rahmani expects a swift settlement. “No one wants to go litigate any of the legal matters tied to Epstein.”

Attorney Eric Faddis, a trial attorney and founder of the legal practice his firm and ex-government lawyer, said companies can be liable. 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 illegal acts”, and in some way provided assistance to Epstein.

“However, even in that case, I think it’s going to be difficult to sort of loop the banks into some kind of trafficking operation. The banks would likely not be privy to the particulars of allegations,” Faddis said. While the financier’s prior legal case was public, “it’s not illegal for a financial institution to have a client who’s an disreputable individual”.

“It is illegal for a bank to in any way be involved in the criminal activity of a client, but these aspects are distinct, and so I think that it’s going to be a difficult case against the institutions.”

Potential Benefits for Survivors

Nevertheless, important aspects of the litigation could help Epstein survivors.

“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 seeking this information, when there’s a lawsuit, there’s a discovery process, and that legal procedure often mandates release of materials that was not formerly available.”

Edwards said in a comment that the lawsuits could have a deterrent effect and accomplish 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 suffer from comparable criminal networks – if our banks are not made responsible for the essential role each performs, either in providing the required framework for the illegal operation or recognizing the financial component of these offenses and stopping it.

Edwards continued: “Our prospects are significantly higher of making a real difference than lawmakers, because we know the facts and background of the matter and are not motivated 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 will not be swayed by obstructions, shielding influential figures, or the other shameful political maneuvering you and the rest of the world have had to observe recently.”

McCawley said in a statement: “While legislators attempt to uncover how Jeffrey Epstein was able to conduct his criminal sex-trafficking enterprise for many years without being caught, we are taking another important step forward toward justice for survivors.”

Bank Responses

When requested for a statement on the legal complaint, the Bank of New York Mellon said: “The allegations in the case are baseless, and we will strongly contest against it.”

Bank of America’s statement likewise stated: “We will vigorously defend ourselves in this case.”