🔗 Share this article

For years, survivors of Jeffrey Epstein have demanded justice. At one point, it appeared like they would achieve it.

Epstein’s former associate Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s ex-girlfriend, was convicted of human trafficking in a 2021 trial for her involvement in the late financier’s sexual abuse of teen girls – and sentenced to 20 years imprisonment.

Meanwhile, financial firms that had worked with Epstein, while not admitting wrongdoing, agreed to pay hundreds of millions in settlements to victims. Donald Trump even made releasing the documents related to the Epstein probe part of his election promises, and reiterated on his commitment to do so in recent months.

Ultimately, the administration’s Department of Justice did not make public these files, and his government has become embroiled in reports 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 recent legal actions could shed light on Epstein’s operations amid the stalemate – irrespective of their outcome.

Lawsuits Target Major Banks

The legal complaints, submitted by an unnamed accuser against Bank of America and the BNY Mellon, allege that these financial powerhouses illicitly enabled Epstein’s trafficking ring. The cases are helmed by attorney Sigrid McCawley, of a prominent law firm, and lawyer Brad Edwards of Edwards Henderson, who have long represented Epstein victims.

“Epstein committed these crimes by means of not only his own vast fortune and influence, but through access to funding and monetary assistance from both private parties and organizations, including the bank,” one lawsuit claims. “Shockingly, BNY had a abundance of knowledge regarding Epstein’s sex trafficking operation but opted for financial gain over safeguarding those harmed.”

The Bank of America suit mirrors these claims, asserting the institution “knowingly provided the financial support and the appearance of respectability for Epstein and his co-conspirators to fuel their global trafficking enterprise under the pretext of non-criminal business activities”. The legal action also said the bank failed to file mandatory financial alerts.

Attorneys Weigh In on Legal Hurdles

Longtime attorneys who spoke to the situation said proving such a case would be difficult. But they also noted potential results which could offer comfort to accusers or release of long-sought information.

Attorney Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor who founded a legal firm, said evidence has to show that an institution’s actions 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 survivors, and I want them to get answers and criminal justice and compensation,” Rahmani said. Some claims might be not directly related from a legal standpoint.

“It all comes down to evidence,” he said. A attorney would need to prove cause and effect, which would mean “but for the defendant’s conduct, the injury wouldn’t have happened”. In this case, that would boil down to “absent the institution’s involvement, the victim maybe wouldn’t have been trafficked”, 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 significant element: that is the standard. So any improper behavior there was, if there was any wrongdoing … the defendant’s misconduct has to have been a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff harm.

“Through maintaining financial ties to Epstein, is that a substantial factor? It’s uncertain.”

Liability aside, suits like this could put institutions on notice that relationships with those involved in alleged crimes can have negative consequences for them.

“It represents a reputational disaster,” Rahmani noted. If the banks try to get these cases thrown out and fail, Rahmani anticipates a swift settlement. “No one wants to go litigate any of the Epstein-related cases.”

Eric Faddis, a litigator and founder of the Colorado law firm Varner Faddis and ex-government lawyer, said corporations can be responsible. In this scenario, “if the institutions bear fault is going to hinge, in part, on their level of awareness, if they were informed of claimed misconduct 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 sex-trafficking scheme. The banks would likely not be aware of the details of claims,” the lawyer said. While the financier’s prior legal case was known, “it’s not illegal for a financial institution to have a customer who’s an disreputable individual”.

“However, it is unlawful for a bank to in any way be involved in the illegal actions of a client, but those two issues are distinct, and so I think that it’s going to be a difficult case against the banks.”

Potential Benefits for Victims

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 lawsuit, there’s a discovery process, and that legal procedure often mandates release of information that was not formerly available.”

Edwards said in a statement that the lawsuits could have a preventive impact and achieve what lawmakers have failed to do.

“The lawsuits are necessary for complete justice for the victims of Jeffrey Epstein – as well as for potential targets who will be harmed from comparable criminal networks – if our financial institutions are not held accountable for the crucial part each plays, either in providing the necessary infrastructure for the criminal enterprise or identifying the financial component of these crimes and putting an end to it.

Edwards continued: “Our prospects are significantly higher of effecting meaningful change than lawmakers, because we understand the facts and background of the matter 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 political agenda and thus will not be swayed by obstructions, 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 statement: “As Congress works toward unraveling how Jeffrey Epstein was able to conduct his criminal sex-trafficking enterprise for decades without being caught, we are taking another important step forward toward justice for victims.”

Bank Responses

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 vigorously defend against it.”

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