🔗 Share this article

For years, survivors of the late financier Jeffrey Epstein have sought accountability. At one point, it appeared 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 sentenced to 20 years imprisonment.

Meanwhile, banks that had done business with Epstein, although not admitting wrongdoing, paid substantial sums in settlements to victims. Donald Trump even made releasing the documents related to the Epstein probe part of his campaign platform, and reiterated on his promise to do so in recent months.

In the end, Trump’s justice department did not release these files, and his administration has become embroiled in reports about personal connections between him and Epstein. Congressional promises to disclose documents have lagged, due to political jockeying and delays from federal authorities.

However two new lawsuits could shed light on Epstein’s operations amid the stalemate – irrespective of their result.

Legal Actions Aim at Leading Financial Institutions

The legal complaints, submitted by an anonymous plaintiff against Bank of America and the Bank of New York Mellon (BNY), claim that these banking giants unlawfully facilitated Epstein’s trafficking ring. The cases are led by Sigrid S McCawley, of Boies Schiller Flexner, and lawyer Brad Edwards of his legal practice, who have consistently advocated for Epstein victims.

“Epstein committed these crimes by means of not only his own vast fortune and power, but through access to funding and financial support from both individuals and organizations, including the bank,” one lawsuit claims. “Shockingly, BNY had a plethora of information regarding Epstein’s trafficking network but opted for financial gain over safeguarding those harmed.”

The Bank of America suit echoes these allegations, asserting the institution “knowingly provided the financial support and the veneer of institutional legitimacy for Epstein and his accomplices to support their global trafficking enterprise under the guise of legal commercial dealings”. The suit also said the bank neglected to file suspicious activity reports.

Attorneys Offer Perspectives on Legal Hurdles

Longtime attorneys who commented on the matter said proving such a case would be difficult. But they also identified potential results which could provide solace to plaintiffs or release of previously hidden details.

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

“In my view, the case faces significant obstacles – and clearly I am on the side of the survivors, and I want them to get answers and legal redress and compensation,” Rahmani said. Some claims might be too tangential from a juridical perspective.

“It all comes down to evidence,” 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 occurred”. In this case, that would boil down to “absent the institution’s involvement, the victim maybe wouldn’t have been trafficked”, Rahmani clarified.

An attorney would also have to go further than a “but for” measure. “Is not just ‘but for’ causation. It also has to be a substantial factor: that is the legal test. So any improper behavior there was, if there was any misconduct … 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 decisive element? I don’t know.”

Liability aside, such lawsuits could serve as a warning that associations with those accused of wrongdoing can have negative consequences for them.

“It’s a PR nightmare,” Rahmani noted. If the banks try to get these cases dismissed and fail, Rahmani anticipates a quick resolution. “No one wants to go litigate any of the Epstein-related cases.”

Attorney Eric Faddis, a trial attorney and founder of the Colorado law firm Varner Faddis and ex-government lawyer, said corporations can be responsible. 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 criminal wrongdoing”, 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 sex-trafficking scheme. The institutions would probably not be privy to the details of claims,” the lawyer said. While Epstein’s Florida conviction was known, “there’s no law against for a financial institution to have a customer who’s an unsavory person”.

“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 distinct, and so I think that it’s going to be a difficult case against the banks.”

Potential Benefits for Survivors

That said, key elements of the litigation could assist those affected by Epstein.

“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 folks pursuing this data, when there’s a lawsuit, there’s a discovery process, and that discovery process often mandates release of information that was not previously public.”

Attorney Brad Edwards said in a comment that the suits could have a preventive impact and achieve what legislators have failed to do.

“Legal actions are essential for full accountability for the victims 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 essential role each performs, either in supplying the required framework for the illegal operation or recognizing the monetary aspect of these crimes and stopping it.

He added: “We have a far better chance of effecting meaningful change than Congress, because we understand the details and background of the case and are not driven 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 partisan motives 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 Jeffrey Epstein was able to conduct his illegal trafficking operation for decades without being caught, we are taking a further significant action forward toward legal resolution for victims.”

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 vigorously defend against it.”

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