🔗 Share this article

Over many years, survivors of the late financier Jeffrey Epstein have sought accountability. At one point, it seemed like they would achieve it.

Epstein’s former associate Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s ex-girlfriend, was found guilty of sex trafficking four years ago for her involvement in the late financier’s sexual abuse of underage females – and sentenced to two decades behind bars.

At the same time, banks that had done business with Epstein, while not accepting fault, paid substantial sums in settlements to victims. Donald 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.

In the end, Trump’s justice department did not release these files, and his administration has become embroiled in allegations about social ties between him and Epstein. Assurances from lawmakers to disclose documents have lagged, due to partisan maneuvering and justice department foot-dragging.

But recent legal actions could provide clarity on Epstein’s activities amid the stalemate – irrespective of their outcome.

Lawsuits Target Leading Financial Institutions

The legal complaints, filed by an anonymous plaintiff against a major U.S. bank and the BNY Mellon, claim that these banking giants illicitly enabled Epstein’s trafficking ring. The cases are helmed by attorney Sigrid McCawley, of Boies Schiller Flexner, and lawyer Brad Edwards of his legal practice, who have long represented Epstein victims.

“The financier carried out these offenses by means of not only his own vast fortune and power, but through financial backing and monetary assistance from both individuals and organizations, including BNY,” the legal filing claims. “Egregiously, BNY had a abundance of knowledge regarding Epstein’s trafficking network but chose profit over protecting the victims.”

The Bank of America suit mirrors these claims, asserting the institution “deliberately supplied the financial support and the appearance of respectability for Epstein and his accomplices to support their international sex trafficking organization under the guise of legal commercial dealings”. The suit also said Bank of America neglected to file suspicious activity reports.

Attorneys Offer Perspectives on Legal Hurdles

Experienced lawyers who spoke to the matter said proving such a case would be challenging. But they also noted potential results which could provide solace to accusers or disclosure of long-sought information.

Attorney Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor who established a legal firm, said proof 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 obviously I am on the side of the victims, and I want them to get answers and legal redress and financial recovery,” Rahmani said. Certain allegations might be not directly related from a juridical perspective.

“It all comes down to evidence,” he said. A lawyer 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 boil down to “but for the bank’s conduct, the victim maybe wouldn’t have been exploited”, the lawyer clarified.

A lawyer would also have to go further than a basic causation test. “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 wrongdoing … the defendant’s misconduct has to have been a substantial factor in leading to the victim’s suffering.

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

Regardless of legal responsibility, suits like this could serve as a warning that associations with those accused of wrongdoing can have damaging implications for them.

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

Attorney Eric Faddis, a litigator and founder of the Colorado law firm his firm and former prosecutor, said corporations can be liable. In this scenario, “if the institutions bear fault is going to depend, in part, on what the banks knew, if they were informed of claimed misconduct or criminal wrongdoing”, and in some way offered support 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 institutions would likely not be aware of the particulars of claims,” the lawyer said. While Epstein’s Florida conviction was known, “there’s no law against for a bank to have a client who’s an unsavory person”.

“However, it is unlawful for a bank to in any way be involved in the criminal activity of a client, but those two issues are very different, and so I think that it’s going to be a difficult case against the institutions.”

Potential Benefits for Survivors

Nevertheless, key elements of the legal proceedings could help those affected by Epstein.

“These cases may uncover additional details 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 seeking this information, when there’s a legal action, there’s a evidence-gathering phase, and that discovery process often mandates disclosure of materials that was not formerly available.”

Edwards said in a statement that the lawsuits could have a preventive impact and achieve what lawmakers have been unable to do.

“Legal actions are essential for full accountability for the victims of Jeffrey Epstein – 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 plays, either in supplying the necessary infrastructure for the criminal enterprise or recognizing the monetary aspect of these crimes 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 case and are not driven by politics but rather by a sincere intention to create substantial impact and to safeguard the victims, who have already suffered tremendously.

“Our handling of these issues without any partisan motives and thus cannot be deterred by shutdowns, protecting wealthy politically connected individuals, or the other shameful political maneuvering you and the rest of the world have had to watch unfold recently.”

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

Bank Responses

Asked for comment 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.”

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