🔗 Share this article

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

Epstein’s former associate Ghislaine Maxwell, the financier’s one-time partner, was convicted of sex trafficking four years ago for her role in the deceased billionaire’s exploitation of teen girls – and sentenced to 20 years imprisonment.

At the same time, banks that had worked with Epstein, while not admitting wrongdoing, agreed to pay hundreds of millions in agreements to survivors. Donald Trump even made releasing the documents related to the Epstein probe part of his campaign platform, and reiterated on his commitment to do so early this year.

Ultimately, Trump’s justice department did not release these records, and his government has become involved in reports about personal connections between him and Epstein. Assurances from lawmakers to release files have stalled, due to political jockeying and delays from federal authorities.

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

Lawsuits Aim at Major Banks

These lawsuits, submitted by an unnamed accuser against a major U.S. bank and the Bank of New York Mellon (BNY), allege that these banking giants illicitly enabled Epstein’s sex trafficking. The cases are helmed by Sigrid S McCawley, of a prominent law firm, and Brad Edwards of his legal practice, who have consistently advocated for survivors of Epstein’s abuse.

“Epstein committed these crimes by means of not only his own vast fortune and influence, but through financial backing and financial support from both individuals and institutions, including the bank,” one lawsuit states. “Shockingly, BNY had a abundance of knowledge regarding Epstein’s sex trafficking operation but chose profit over protecting the victims.”

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 guise of legal commercial dealings”. The suit also said the bank failed to file suspicious activity reports.

Attorneys Offer Perspectives on Legal Hurdles

Longtime attorneys who spoke to the matter said proving such a case would be difficult. But they also identified possible outcomes which could offer comfort to plaintiffs or release of long-sought information.

Neama Rahmani, a ex-government lawyer who established a legal firm, said evidence has to show that an institution’s actions resulted in harm.

“In my view, the case faces significant obstacles – and clearly I am on the side of the victims, and I want them to get answers and criminal justice and compensation,” the attorney said. Certain allegations might be too tangential from a legal standpoint.

“It all comes down to evidence,” he said. A lawyer would need to prove cause and effect, which would mean “but for the defendant’s conduct, the harm wouldn’t have happened”. In this case, that would boil down to “absent the institution’s involvement, the survivor maybe wouldn’t have been exploited”, Rahmani explained.

An attorney would also have to go further than a basic causation test. “It’s not solely about indirect cause. It also has to be a substantial factor: that is the standard. So any improper behavior there was, if there was any misconduct … the bank’s actions has to have been a key contributor in causing the plaintiff harm.

“By engaging in a business relationship with Epstein, is that a substantial factor? I don’t know.”

Liability aside, such lawsuits could serve as a warning that relationships with those accused of wrongdoing can have damaging implications for them.

“It represents a reputational disaster,” he said. If the financial institutions try to get these suits dismissed and are unsuccessful, the attorney anticipates a quick resolution. “No one wants to go litigate any of the legal matters tied to Epstein.”

Eric Faddis, a litigator and founder of the Colorado law firm Varner Faddis 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, if they were informed of claimed misconduct or illegal acts”, and somehow provided assistance to Epstein.

“But even then, I think it’s going to be difficult to sort of loop the banks into some kind of trafficking operation. The institutions would likely not be privy to the details of claims,” Faddis said. While Epstein’s Florida conviction was public, “it’s not illegal for a bank to have a client who’s an disreputable individual”.

“It is illegal 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 tough lawsuit against the banks.”

Potential Benefits for Victims

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

“These cases may uncover additional details about the ongoing Epstein saga,” the attorney said. “Even though there have been sort of walls put up at every turn for individuals seeking this information, when there’s a lawsuit, there’s a evidence-gathering phase, and that legal procedure often mandates disclosure of information that was not previously public.”

Edwards said in a statement 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 Jeffrey Epstein – as well as for potential targets who will suffer from comparable criminal networks – if our financial institutions are not made responsible for the essential role each plays, either in supplying the necessary infrastructure for the illegal operation or identifying the monetary aspect of these offenses and stopping it.

Edwards continued: “Our prospects are significantly higher of effecting meaningful change than lawmakers, because we understand the facts and history of the case and are not motivated by partisan interests but rather by a sincere intention to create substantial impact and to protect the survivors, who have already endured immense pain.

“We approach these matters without any political agenda and thus will not be swayed by obstructions, protecting wealthy politically connected individuals, or the other shameful political maneuvering you and the rest of the world have had to observe recently.”

McCawley said in a declaration: “As Congress works toward unraveling how Jeffrey Epstein was able to orchestrate his illegal trafficking operation for many years without being caught, we are taking another important step forward toward legal resolution for survivors.”

Institutional Reactions

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

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