🔗 Share this article

Over many years, survivors of Jeffrey Epstein have demanded accountability. For a while, it appeared like they would get it.

Epstein’s former associate 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 sentenced to 20 years imprisonment.

At the same time, financial firms that had done business with Epstein, although not admitting wrongdoing, paid hundreds of millions in agreements 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 social ties between him and Epstein. Congressional promises to disclose documents have stalled, due to partisan maneuvering and justice department foot-dragging.

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

Legal Actions Target Major Banks

These lawsuits, submitted by an anonymous plaintiff against a major U.S. bank and the Bank of New York Mellon (BNY), claim that these banking giants illicitly enabled Epstein’s sex trafficking. The suits are helmed by Sigrid S McCawley, of a prominent law firm, 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 private parties and organizations, including BNY,” one lawsuit claims. “Egregiously, the institution 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, declaring the institution “deliberately supplied the financial support and the veneer of institutional legitimacy for Epstein and his accomplices to support their global trafficking enterprise under the pretext of legal commercial dealings”. The legal action 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 disclosure of previously hidden details.

Neama Rahmani, a ex-government lawyer who founded a legal firm, said proof has to show that an institution’s actions led to harm.

“I don’t think the lawsuit has much of a chance of success – and obviously I am on the side of the survivors, and I want them to get explanations and legal redress and compensation,” Rahmani said. Some claims might be too tangential from a legal standpoint.

“It all comes down to evidence,” he said. A attorney would need to prove causation, which would mean “but for the defendant’s conduct, the injury wouldn’t have happened”. In this instance, that would translate to “absent the institution’s involvement, the victim maybe wouldn’t have been trafficked”, Rahmani clarified.

A lawyer 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 bank’s actions has to have been a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff harm.

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

Regardless of legal responsibility, such lawsuits could put institutions on notice that associations with those involved in alleged crimes can have damaging implications for them.

“It represents a reputational disaster,” Rahmani noted. If the financial institutions try to get these cases dismissed and fail, the attorney anticipates a swift settlement. “No one wants to go litigate any of the legal matters tied to Epstein.”

Eric Faddis, a trial attorney and principal of the legal practice his firm and former prosecutor, said companies can be responsible. In this scenario, “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 in some way provided assistance to Epstein.

“But even then, I think it’s going to be hard to effectively connect the banks into some kind of trafficking operation. The banks would likely not be privy to the particulars of claims,” the lawyer said. While the financier’s prior legal case was public, “there’s no law against for a bank to have a client 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 these aspects are distinct, and so I think that it’s going to be a difficult case against the institutions.”

Potential Benefits for Victims

That said, key elements of the litigation could assist Epstein survivors.

“These cases may uncover additional details about the ongoing Epstein saga,” Faddis 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 legal action, there’s a discovery process, and that discovery process often mandates release of materials that was not formerly available.”

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

“Legal actions are essential for full accountability for the survivors of Jeffrey Epstein – as well as for potential targets who will be harmed from similar trafficking organizations – if our financial institutions are not held accountable for the crucial part each performs, either in supplying the necessary infrastructure for the illegal operation or identifying the monetary aspect of these offenses and putting an end to it.

Edwards continued: “Our prospects are significantly higher of making a real difference than Congress, because we know the facts and history of the matter and are not driven by partisan interests but rather by a sincere intention to create substantial impact and to safeguard 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.”

McCawley said in a declaration: “While legislators attempt to uncover how Jeffrey Epstein was able to conduct his criminal sex-trafficking enterprise for decades without being caught, we are taking a further significant action forward toward justice for victims.”

Institutional Reactions

Asked for comment on the legal complaint, BNY said: “The claims in the lawsuit are meritless, and we will vigorously defend against it.”

The bank’s response likewise stated: “We intend to firmly protect our interests in this case.”