🔗 Share this article

For years, victims of the late financier Jeffrey Epstein have demanded accountability. For a while, it seemed like they would get it.

Ghislaine Maxwell, the financier’s one-time partner, was convicted of sex trafficking four years ago for her involvement in the late financier’s sexual abuse of underage females – and given to 20 years imprisonment.

At the same time, financial firms that had worked with Epstein, while not admitting wrongdoing, agreed to pay substantial sums in agreements to survivors. Donald Trump even made disclosing the Epstein investigative files part of his election promises, and reiterated on his promise to do so early this year.

Ultimately, the administration’s Department of Justice did not release these files, and his administration has become involved in allegations about personal connections between him and Epstein. Assurances from lawmakers to release files have stalled, due to political jockeying and justice department foot-dragging.

But two new lawsuits could shed light on Epstein’s operations amid the stalemate – irrespective of their result.

Lawsuits Aim at Major Banks

These lawsuits, submitted by an anonymous plaintiff against a major U.S. bank and the BNY Mellon, allege that these financial powerhouses unlawfully facilitated Epstein’s sex trafficking. The suits are led by Sigrid S McCawley, of Boies Schiller Flexner, and Brad Edwards of Edwards Henderson, who have long represented survivors of Epstein’s abuse.

“Epstein committed these crimes by means of not only his own extraordinary wealth and influence, but through financial backing and financial support from both private parties and institutions, including BNY,” the legal filing states. “Egregiously, the institution had a plethora of information regarding Epstein’s trafficking network but chose profit over protecting the victims.”

The Bank of America suit echoes these allegations, asserting the institution “knowingly provided the monetary resources and the veneer of institutional legitimacy for Epstein and his accomplices to support their global trafficking enterprise 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 commented on the matter said proving such a case would be challenging. But they also identified potential results which could provide solace to plaintiffs or disclosure of previously hidden details.

Neama Rahmani, a ex-government lawyer who established West Coast Trial lawyers, said proof has to show that an bank’s conduct resulted in harm.

“In my view, the case faces significant obstacles – and obviously I am on the side of the survivors, 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 cause and effect, which would mean “if not for the bank’s actions, the harm wouldn’t have happened”. In this instance, that would translate to “but for the bank’s conduct, the victim maybe wouldn’t have been exploited”, the lawyer clarified.

An attorney would also have to go further than a “but for” measure. “It’s not solely about indirect cause. 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 key contributor 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 negative consequences for them.

“It represents a reputational disaster,” he said. If the banks try to get these suits thrown out and fail, the attorney anticipates a quick resolution. “No party desires to pursue any of the Epstein-related cases.”

Eric Faddis, a litigator and founder of the legal practice his firm and ex-government lawyer, said corporations can be liable. In this scenario, “whether the banks have liability is going to hinge, in part, on their level of awareness, 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 institutions would probably not be aware of the details of allegations,” Faddis said. While Epstein’s Florida conviction was known, “it’s not illegal for a financial institution to have a customer who’s an disreputable individual”.

“It is illegal for a bank to somehow be complicit in the illegal actions of a customer, 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 Victims

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

“These cases may uncover additional details about the continuing Epstein story,” the attorney said. “Even though there have been obstacles erected at every turn for individuals seeking this information, when there’s a legal action, there’s a discovery process, and that discovery process often requires disclosure of materials that was not previously public.”

Attorney Brad Edwards said in a statement that the lawsuits could have a deterrent effect and achieve what legislators have been unable to do.

“The lawsuits are necessary for complete justice for the survivors of the financier – as well as for future would-be victims who will be harmed from similar trafficking organizations – if our banks are not made responsible for the essential role each plays, either in supplying the required framework for the illegal operation or identifying the financial component of these offenses and stopping it.

He added: “We have a far better chance of effecting meaningful change than lawmakers, because we understand the facts and history of the case and are not motivated by politics but rather by a sincere intention to make a real difference and to protect the victims, 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 embarrassing partisan gamesmanship you and the rest of the world have had to observe recently.”

Attorney Sigrid McCawley said in a declaration: “While legislators attempt to uncover how Jeffrey Epstein was able to conduct his criminal sex-trafficking enterprise for many years without detection, we are taking a further significant action forward toward legal resolution for victims.”

Bank Responses

Asked for comment on the legal complaint, BNY said: “The claims in the lawsuit are meritless, and we will vigorously defend against it.”

Bank of America’s statement likewise stated: “We will vigorously defend ourselves in this case.”