🔗 Share this article

Over many years, victims of the late financier Jeffrey Epstein have sought justice. For a while, it seemed like they would get it.

Ghislaine Maxwell, the financier’s one-time partner, was convicted of sex trafficking in a 2021 trial for her role in the late financier’s sexual abuse of underage females – 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. Former President Trump even made releasing the documents related to the Epstein probe part of his election promises, and doubled down on his commitment to do so early this year.

Ultimately, Trump’s justice department did not release these records, and his administration has become embroiled in allegations about personal connections between him and Epstein. Assurances from lawmakers to disclose documents have lagged, due to partisan maneuvering and justice department foot-dragging.

However recent legal actions could provide clarity on Epstein’s operations amid the stalemate – regardless of their result.

Lawsuits Target Leading Financial Institutions

The legal complaints, submitted by an unnamed accuser against a major U.S. bank and the BNY Mellon, allege that these financial powerhouses illicitly enabled Epstein’s sex trafficking. The suits are led by attorney Sigrid McCawley, of Boies Schiller Flexner, and Brad Edwards of his legal practice, who have consistently advocated for Epstein victims.

“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 the bank,” one lawsuit states. “Egregiously, BNY had a abundance of knowledge regarding Epstein’s trafficking network but opted for financial gain over protecting the victims.”

The complaint against Bank of America echoes these allegations, declaring the institution “knowingly provided the monetary resources and the veneer of institutional legitimacy for Epstein and his co-conspirators to fuel their international sex trafficking organization under the pretext of legal commercial dealings”. The legal action also said Bank of America failed to file mandatory financial alerts.

Attorneys Offer Perspectives on Legal Hurdles

Experienced lawyers who commented on the situation said establishing liability would be challenging. But they also identified possible outcomes which could provide solace to accusers or release of previously hidden details.

Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor who established West Coast Trial lawyers, said proof has to show that an bank’s conduct led to harm.

“In my view, the case faces significant obstacles – and obviously I am on the side of the victims, and I want them to get answers and criminal justice and financial recovery,” the attorney said. Some claims might be not directly related from a juridical perspective.

“The case hinges on proof,” he said. A attorney would need to prove causation, which would mean “but for the defendant’s conduct, the harm 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”, 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 significant element: 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 leading to the victim’s suffering.

“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 relationships with those involved in alleged crimes can have damaging implications for them.

“It represents a reputational disaster,” he said. If the banks try to get these cases thrown out and are unsuccessful, 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 his firm and ex-government lawyer, said corporations can be responsible. In this situation, “if the institutions bear fault is going to depend, 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 financial entities into some kind of sex-trafficking scheme. The banks would likely not be privy to the particulars of claims,” the lawyer said. While the financier’s prior legal case 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 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 tough lawsuit against the institutions.”

Potential Benefits for Survivors

That said, important aspects of the litigation could assist Epstein survivors.

“The lawsuits have the potential to reveal more information about the continuing Epstein story,” the attorney said. “Even though there have been sort of walls put up at every turn for individuals seeking this data, when there’s a legal action, there’s a evidence-gathering phase, and that legal procedure often requires disclosure of information that was not formerly available.”

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

“Legal actions are essential for full accountability for the victims of Jeffrey Epstein – as well as for potential targets who will be harmed from comparable criminal networks – if our banks are not made responsible for the crucial part each plays, either in providing the required framework for the illegal operation or recognizing the financial component of these offenses and putting an end to it.

He added: “We have a far better chance of effecting meaningful change than Congress, because we understand the facts and background of the matter 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.

“Our handling of these issues without any political agenda and thus cannot be deterred by obstructions, shielding influential figures, or the other shameful political maneuvering 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 orchestrate his illegal trafficking operation for decades without being caught, we are taking a further significant action forward toward legal resolution for survivors.”

Bank Responses

Asked for comment on the lawsuit, the Bank of New York Mellon said: “The claims in the lawsuit are meritless, and we will strongly contest against it.”

Bank of America’s statement likewise stated: “We intend to firmly protect our interests in this matter.”