🔗 Share this article

For years, survivors of Jeffrey Epstein have demanded justice. For a while, it appeared like they would achieve it.

Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s ex-girlfriend, was convicted of sex trafficking in a 2021 trial for her role in the late financier’s sexual abuse of teen girls – and given to 20 years imprisonment.

At the same time, financial firms that had worked with Epstein, although not admitting wrongdoing, agreed to pay substantial sums in settlements to victims. Donald Trump even made releasing the Epstein investigative files part of his election promises, and reiterated on his promise to do so in recent months.

In the end, the administration’s Department of Justice did not make public these files, and his government has become involved in reports about personal connections between him and Epstein. Assurances from lawmakers to release files have stalled, due to partisan maneuvering and delays from federal authorities.

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

Lawsuits Target Major Banks

The legal complaints, submitted by an anonymous plaintiff against Bank of America and the BNY Mellon, claim that these banking giants unlawfully facilitated Epstein’s trafficking ring. The suits are helmed by Sigrid S McCawley, of a prominent law firm, and lawyer Brad Edwards of his legal practice, who have long represented Epstein victims.

“Epstein committed these crimes by means of not only his own vast fortune and power, but through financial backing and financial support from both individuals and organizations, including the bank,” one lawsuit states. “Shockingly, BNY had a plethora of information regarding Epstein’s sex trafficking operation but chose profit over protecting the victims.”

The Bank of America suit echoes these allegations, asserting 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 legal action also said Bank of America neglected to file suspicious activity reports.

Legal Experts Weigh In on Case Challenges

Experienced lawyers who commented on the matter said establishing liability would be challenging. But they also noted possible outcomes which could offer comfort to accusers or disclosure of previously hidden details.

Attorney Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor who established West Coast Trial lawyers, said proof has to show that an bank’s conduct led to harm.

“I don’t think the lawsuit has much of a chance of success – and clearly I am on the side of the victims, and I want them to get explanations and criminal justice and compensation,” the attorney said. Certain allegations might be too tangential from a juridical perspective.

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

An attorney 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 bank’s actions has to have been a key contributor in leading to the plaintiff harm.

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

Liability aside, suits like this 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 dismissed and fail, Rahmani anticipates a swift settlement. “No one wants to go litigate any of the legal matters tied to Epstein.”

Eric Faddis, a litigator and principal of the Colorado law firm his firm and former prosecutor, said corporations can be responsible. In this situation, “whether the banks have liability is going to depend, in part, on what the banks knew, if they were informed of claimed misconduct or criminal wrongdoing”, and somehow offered support to Epstein.

“However, even in that case, I think it’s going to be hard to sort of loop the financial entities into some kind of sex-trafficking scheme. The institutions would probably not be privy to the details of allegations,” Faddis said. While Epstein’s Florida conviction was known, “there’s no law against for a financial institution to have a client who’s an unsavory person”.

“However, it is unlawful for a bank to somehow be complicit in the illegal actions 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.”

Possible Advantages for Survivors

That said, key elements of the legal proceedings could help Epstein survivors.

“The lawsuits have the potential to reveal more information about the continuing Epstein story,” the attorney said. “Despite the fact that there have been sort of walls put up at every turn for individuals pursuing this data, when there’s a legal action, there’s a discovery process, and that discovery process often requires disclosure of materials that was not previously public.”

Edwards said in a statement that the suits could have a preventive impact and accomplish what lawmakers have failed to do.

“Legal actions are essential for full accountability for the victims of the financier – as well as for potential targets who will suffer from comparable criminal networks – if our financial institutions are not held accountable for the essential role each performs, either in providing the required framework for the criminal enterprise or identifying the monetary aspect of these crimes and stopping it.

He added: “Our prospects are significantly higher of making a real difference than Congress, because we know the details and history of the case and are not motivated by politics but rather by a sincere intention to create substantial impact and to protect the victims, 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 embarrassing partisan gamesmanship you and the rest of the world have had to watch unfold recently.”

Attorney Sigrid McCawley said in a declaration: “While legislators attempt to uncover how the financier was able to conduct his illegal trafficking operation for decades without detection, we are taking a further significant action forward toward legal resolution for victims.”

Institutional Reactions

Asked for comment on the lawsuit, 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.”