🔗 Share this article

Over many years, survivors of the late financier Jeffrey Epstein have demanded justice. At one point, it appeared like they would achieve it.

Ghislaine Maxwell, the financier’s one-time partner, was convicted of human trafficking in a 2021 trial for her role in the deceased billionaire’s sexual abuse of underage females – and given to two decades behind bars.

At the same time, banks that had worked with Epstein, although not accepting fault, agreed to pay hundreds of millions in settlements to survivors. Former President Trump even made releasing the documents related to the Epstein probe part of his election promises, and reiterated on his promise to do so in recent months.

Ultimately, the administration’s Department of Justice did not make public these files, and his administration has become embroiled in allegations about personal connections between him and Epstein. Congressional promises to release files have stalled, due to political jockeying and delays from federal authorities.

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

Legal Actions Target Leading Financial Institutions

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

“Epstein committed these crimes by means of not only his own extraordinary wealth and influence, but through access to funding and financial support from both private parties and institutions, including BNY,” the legal filing states. “Shockingly, the institution had a abundance of knowledge regarding Epstein’s sex trafficking operation but opted for financial gain over protecting the victims.”

The Bank of America suit echoes these allegations, declaring the institution “knowingly provided the financial support and the appearance of respectability for Epstein and his accomplices to support their global trafficking enterprise under the pretext of non-criminal business activities”. The suit also said Bank of America failed to file mandatory financial alerts.

Legal Experts Offer Perspectives on Case Challenges

Experienced lawyers who spoke to the situation said proving such a case would be challenging. But they also identified potential results which could offer comfort to plaintiffs or disclosure of long-sought information.

Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor who established West Coast Trial lawyers, said evidence has to show that an bank’s conduct resulted in 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 answers and criminal justice and compensation,” Rahmani said. Certain allegations might be too tangential from a legal standpoint.

“The case hinges on proof,” he said. A lawyer would need to prove cause and effect, which would mean “but for the defendant’s conduct, the injury wouldn’t have occurred”. In this instance, that would boil down to “absent the institution’s involvement, the victim maybe wouldn’t have been trafficked”, the lawyer explained.

An attorney 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 misconduct … 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 decisive element? I don’t know.”

Regardless of legal responsibility, such lawsuits could put institutions on notice that relationships with those accused of wrongdoing can have negative consequences for them.

“It represents a reputational disaster,” he said. If the banks try to get these cases thrown out and are unsuccessful, the attorney anticipates a swift settlement. “No one wants to go litigate any of the Epstein-related cases.”

Eric Faddis, a litigator and founder of the legal practice his firm and former prosecutor, said companies can be liable. In this situation, “if the institutions bear fault is going to hinge, in part, on what the banks knew, whether they had any knowledge of alleged abuse or illegal acts”, and somehow offered support 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 aware of the particulars of allegations,” the lawyer said. While Epstein’s Florida conviction was known, “it’s not illegal for a bank to have a client who’s an unsavory person”.

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

Possible Advantages for Victims

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

“The lawsuits have the potential to reveal more information about the continuing Epstein story,” the attorney said. “Even though there have been obstacles erected at every turn for folks pursuing this information, when there’s a lawsuit, there’s a evidence-gathering phase, and that legal procedure often mandates release of materials that was not formerly available.”

Edwards said in a comment that the suits could have a deterrent effect and accomplish what legislators have been unable to do.

“Legal actions are essential for full accountability for the victims of Jeffrey Epstein – as well as for future would-be victims who will be harmed from comparable criminal networks – if our financial institutions are not made responsible 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: “We have a far better chance of making a real difference than lawmakers, because we understand 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 victims, who have already endured immense pain.

“We approach these matters without any political agenda 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.”

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

Institutional Reactions

Asked for comment on the lawsuit, 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 matter.”