🔗 Share this article

For years, survivors of the late financier Jeffrey Epstein have sought accountability. For a while, it seemed like they would achieve it.

Epstein’s former associate Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s ex-girlfriend, was found guilty of human trafficking in a 2021 trial for her role in the deceased billionaire’s sexual abuse of teen girls – and sentenced to two decades behind bars.

At the same time, financial firms that had done business with Epstein, although not accepting fault, paid substantial sums in agreements to survivors. Donald Trump even made releasing the Epstein investigative files part of his election promises, and doubled down on his commitment to do so early this year.

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

However two new lawsuits could shed light on Epstein’s operations amid the deadlock – irrespective 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), allege that these financial powerhouses unlawfully facilitated Epstein’s sex trafficking. The cases are led by Sigrid S McCawley, of Boies Schiller Flexner, and Brad Edwards of his legal practice, who have consistently advocated for survivors of Epstein’s abuse.

“The financier carried out these offenses by means of not only his own extraordinary wealth and power, but through access to funding and monetary assistance from both private parties and organizations, including BNY,” the legal filing claims. “Shockingly, the institution had a abundance of knowledge regarding Epstein’s sex trafficking operation but chose profit over protecting the victims.”

The Bank of America suit echoes these allegations, declaring the institution “deliberately supplied the monetary resources and the appearance of respectability for Epstein and his co-conspirators to support their international sex trafficking organization under the pretext of legal commercial dealings”. The suit also said Bank of America failed to file suspicious activity reports.

Legal Experts Weigh In on Legal Hurdles

Experienced lawyers who spoke to the situation said establishing liability would be difficult. But they also identified possible outcomes which could provide solace to accusers or release of long-sought information.

Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor who founded West Coast Trial lawyers, said evidence 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 survivors, and I want them to get explanations and legal redress and financial recovery,” the attorney said. Certain allegations might be too tangential from a juridical perspective.

“The case hinges on proof,” Rahmani said. A lawyer would need to prove causation, 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 explained.

An attorney would also have to go beyond a basic causation test. “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 wrongdoing … the bank’s actions has to have been a substantial factor in leading to the plaintiff harm.

“Through maintaining financial ties to Epstein, is that a decisive element? I don’t know.”

Liability aside, such lawsuits could put institutions on notice that associations with those accused of wrongdoing can have damaging implications for them.

“It’s a PR nightmare,” Rahmani noted. If the financial institutions try to get these cases thrown out and are unsuccessful, Rahmani expects a swift settlement. “No one wants to go litigate any of the legal matters tied to Epstein.”

Attorney Eric Faddis, a litigator and founder of the Colorado law firm his firm and ex-government lawyer, said corporations can be liable. In this scenario, “whether the banks have liability is going to depend, in part, on what the banks knew, if they were informed of alleged abuse or criminal wrongdoing”, and in some way offered support to Epstein.

“However, even in that case, I think it’s going to be difficult to effectively connect the banks into some kind of trafficking operation. The banks would probably not be aware of the particulars of claims,” the lawyer said. While Epstein’s Florida conviction was public, “it’s not illegal for a financial institution to have a customer who’s an disreputable individual”.

“It is illegal for a financial firm to somehow be involved 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 banks.”

Possible Advantages for Victims

That said, important aspects of the litigation could help those affected by Epstein.

“These cases may uncover additional details about the ongoing Epstein saga,” Faddis said. “Even though there have been obstacles erected at every turn for folks pursuing this information, when there’s a legal action, there’s a evidence-gathering phase, and that discovery process often requires disclosure of materials that was not formerly available.”

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

“The lawsuits are necessary for complete justice for the survivors of the financier – 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 providing the required framework for the criminal enterprise or recognizing the financial component of these offenses and putting an end to it.

Edwards continued: “We have a far better chance of effecting meaningful change than lawmakers, because we know the facts and history 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 suffered tremendously.

“Our handling of these issues without any partisan motives and thus will not be swayed by obstructions, protecting wealthy politically connected individuals, or the other embarrassing partisan gamesmanship you and the rest of the world have had to observe recently.”

McCawley said in a statement: “As Congress works toward unraveling how the financier was able to conduct his illegal trafficking operation for decades without being caught, we are taking a further significant action forward toward justice for survivors.”

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 similarly remarked: “We will vigorously defend ourselves in this case.”