🔗 Share this article

Over many years, victims of Jeffrey Epstein have sought accountability. At one point, it seemed like they would achieve it.

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

At the same time, banks that had worked with Epstein, while not accepting fault, agreed to pay substantial sums in agreements to survivors. Former President Trump even made releasing the Epstein investigative files part of his campaign platform, and reiterated on his promise to do so early this year.

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

However two new lawsuits could shed light on Epstein’s activities amid the stalemate – regardless of their outcome.

Legal Actions Target Leading Financial Institutions

The legal complaints, filed by an unnamed accuser against Bank of America and the Bank of New York Mellon (BNY), allege that these financial powerhouses illicitly enabled Epstein’s trafficking ring. The cases are led by Sigrid S McCawley, of a prominent law firm, and lawyer 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 power, but through access to funding and financial support from both private parties and organizations, including the bank,” the legal filing claims. “Shockingly, BNY had a plethora of information regarding Epstein’s trafficking network but opted for financial gain over protecting the victims.”

The Bank of America suit mirrors these claims, declaring the institution “deliberately supplied the monetary resources and the veneer of institutional legitimacy for Epstein and his accomplices to fuel their global trafficking enterprise under the guise of non-criminal business activities”. The suit also said Bank of America failed to file mandatory financial alerts.

Legal Experts Weigh In on Legal Hurdles

Experienced lawyers who spoke to the situation said proving such a case would be challenging. But they also identified potential results which could offer comfort to accusers or disclosure of long-sought information.

Attorney Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor who established a legal firm, said evidence 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 explanations and legal redress and compensation,” Rahmani said. Some claims might be too tangential from a juridical perspective.

“The case hinges on proof,” he said. A lawyer would need to prove cause and effect, which would mean “but for the defendant’s conduct, the injury wouldn’t have occurred”. In this case, that would translate to “but for the bank’s conduct, the victim maybe wouldn’t have been exploited”, Rahmani explained.

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 significant element: that is the legal test. So any improper behavior there was, if there was any wrongdoing … the defendant’s misconduct has to have been a substantial factor in leading to the plaintiff harm.

“By engaging in a business relationship with Epstein, is that a decisive element? It’s uncertain.”

Regardless of legal responsibility, suits like this 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 thrown out and are unsuccessful, the attorney expects a quick resolution. “No one wants to go litigate any of the Epstein-related cases.”

Eric Faddis, a trial attorney and founder of the Colorado law firm Varner Faddis and former prosecutor, said companies can be liable. In this situation, “whether the banks have liability is going to depend, in part, on what the banks knew, whether they had any knowledge of claimed misconduct or illegal acts”, and in some way provided assistance to Epstein.

“However, even in that case, I think it’s going to be hard to effectively connect the banks into some kind of sex-trafficking scheme. The institutions would likely not be aware of the particulars of allegations,” Faddis said. While Epstein’s Florida conviction was known, “there’s no law against for a financial institution to have a client 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 distinct, and so I think that it’s going to be a difficult case against the banks.”

Possible Advantages for Survivors

Nevertheless, key elements of the litigation could help those affected by Epstein.

“These cases may uncover additional details about the continuing Epstein story,” Faddis said. “Even though there have been sort of walls put up at every turn for folks seeking this information, when there’s a lawsuit, there’s a discovery process, and that discovery process often mandates release of information that was not formerly available.”

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

“Legal actions are essential for full accountability for the survivors of Jeffrey Epstein – as well as for potential targets who will be harmed from similar trafficking organizations – if our banks are not made responsible for the crucial part each performs, either in providing the required framework for the criminal enterprise or recognizing the financial component 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 background of the matter and are not motivated by politics 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 embarrassing partisan gamesmanship you and the rest of the world have had to observe recently.”

Attorney Sigrid McCawley said in a statement: “As Congress works toward unraveling how Jeffrey Epstein was able to conduct his illegal trafficking operation for many years without detection, we are taking a further significant action forward toward justice for survivors.”

Bank Responses

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

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