🔗 Share this article

For years, victims of the late financier Jeffrey Epstein have sought accountability. At one point, it appeared like they would get it.

Epstein’s former associate Ghislaine Maxwell, the financier’s one-time partner, was found guilty of human trafficking four years ago for her involvement in the late financier’s exploitation of underage females – and sentenced to two decades behind bars.

Meanwhile, financial firms that had done business with Epstein, while not accepting fault, agreed to pay hundreds of millions in settlements to victims. Former President Trump even made releasing the Epstein investigative files part of his campaign platform, and doubled down on his commitment to do so in recent months.

Ultimately, the administration’s Department of Justice did not release these records, and his administration has become involved in allegations about personal connections between him and Epstein. Congressional promises to disclose documents have lagged, due to political jockeying and delays from federal authorities.

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

Legal Actions Target Major Banks

These lawsuits, filed by an anonymous plaintiff against Bank of America and the Bank of New York Mellon (BNY), claim that these banking giants unlawfully facilitated Epstein’s trafficking ring. The suits are helmed by attorney Sigrid McCawley, of a prominent law firm, 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 extraordinary wealth and influence, but through access to funding and financial support from both individuals and organizations, including the bank,” the legal filing states. “Egregiously, BNY had a abundance of knowledge regarding Epstein’s trafficking network but chose profit over safeguarding those harmed.”

The complaint against Bank of America echoes these allegations, asserting the institution “knowingly provided the monetary resources and the veneer of institutional legitimacy for Epstein and his accomplices to fuel their international sex trafficking organization under the pretext of non-criminal business activities”. The suit also said the bank neglected to file mandatory financial alerts.

Attorneys Weigh In on Case Challenges

Longtime attorneys who commented on the situation said establishing liability would be challenging. But they also noted potential results which could provide solace to plaintiffs or release of long-sought information.

Neama Rahmani, a ex-government lawyer who established a legal firm, said proof 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 obviously I am on the side of the victims, and I want them to get answers and criminal justice and compensation,” Rahmani said. Some claims might be too tangential from a legal standpoint.

“It all comes down to evidence,” Rahmani said. A attorney would need to prove causation, which would mean “if not for the bank’s actions, the harm wouldn’t have occurred”. In this instance, that would translate to “absent the institution’s involvement, the survivor maybe wouldn’t have been trafficked”, Rahmani explained.

A lawyer 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 standard. So any improper behavior there was, if there was any wrongdoing … the defendant’s misconduct has to have been a key contributor in causing the victim’s suffering.

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

Regardless of legal responsibility, suits like this could put institutions on notice that relationships with those accused of wrongdoing can have damaging implications for them.

“It’s a PR nightmare,” he said. If the financial institutions try to get these cases dismissed and are unsuccessful, the attorney anticipates a quick resolution. “No one wants to go litigate any of the legal matters tied to Epstein.”

Attorney Eric Faddis, a litigator and principal of the legal practice his firm and ex-government lawyer, said companies can be liable. In this situation, “whether the banks have liability is going to depend, in part, on their level of awareness, if they were informed of claimed misconduct or illegal acts”, 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 financial entities into some kind of trafficking operation. The banks would likely not be aware of the particulars of claims,” Faddis said. While Epstein’s Florida conviction was public, “there’s no law against for a financial institution to have a client who’s an unsavory person”.

“However, it is unlawful for a financial firm to somehow 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 tough lawsuit against the institutions.”

Potential Benefits for Victims

Nevertheless, important aspects of the litigation could assist Epstein survivors.

“These cases may uncover additional details about the continuing Epstein story,” Faddis said. “Despite the fact that there have been obstacles erected at every turn for individuals pursuing this data, when there’s a lawsuit, there’s a evidence-gathering phase, and that discovery process often requires release of materials that was not formerly available.”

Attorney Brad 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 victims of the financier – as well as for future would-be victims who will suffer from similar trafficking organizations – if our financial institutions are not made responsible for the essential role each performs, either in providing the required framework for the criminal enterprise or identifying the financial component 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 know the details and background of the case and are not driven by partisan interests but rather by a sincere intention to create substantial impact and to protect the survivors, who have already suffered tremendously.

“We approach these matters without any partisan motives and thus will not be swayed by shutdowns, shielding influential figures, 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 Jeffrey Epstein was able to orchestrate his criminal sex-trafficking enterprise for decades without detection, we are taking another important step forward toward legal resolution for victims.”

Institutional Reactions

When requested for a statement on the lawsuit, 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 similarly remarked: “We will vigorously defend ourselves in this matter.”