🔗 Share this article

For years, victims of Jeffrey Epstein have demanded accountability. At one point, it appeared like they would get it.

Ghislaine Maxwell, the financier’s one-time partner, was found guilty of human trafficking four years ago for her involvement in the deceased billionaire’s exploitation of teen girls – and sentenced to 20 years imprisonment.

Meanwhile, banks that had done business with Epstein, although not admitting wrongdoing, paid substantial sums in settlements to survivors. Donald Trump even made disclosing the documents related to the Epstein probe part of his election promises, and reiterated on his promise to do so early this year.

In the end, the administration’s Department of Justice did not release these records, and his government has become embroiled in allegations about personal connections between him and Epstein. Assurances from lawmakers to disclose documents have stalled, due to political jockeying and justice department foot-dragging.

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

Legal Actions Aim at Leading Financial Institutions

The legal complaints, filed by an anonymous plaintiff against Bank of America and the BNY Mellon, allege that these financial powerhouses unlawfully facilitated Epstein’s sex trafficking. The cases are led by attorney Sigrid McCawley, of a prominent law firm, and Brad Edwards of Edwards Henderson, who have long represented Epstein victims.

“Epstein committed these crimes by means of not only his own extraordinary wealth and influence, but through access to funding and monetary assistance from both individuals and institutions, including the bank,” one lawsuit states. “Shockingly, the institution had a plethora of information regarding Epstein’s trafficking network but chose profit over protecting the victims.”

The complaint against Bank of America mirrors these claims, asserting the institution “knowingly provided the financial support and the appearance of respectability for Epstein and his accomplices to fuel their global trafficking enterprise under the guise of non-criminal business activities”. The legal action also said Bank of America neglected to file suspicious activity reports.

Attorneys Offer Perspectives on Case Challenges

Experienced lawyers who commented on the situation said establishing liability would be challenging. But they also noted possible outcomes which could offer comfort to accusers or disclosure of long-sought information.

Attorney Neama Rahmani, a ex-government lawyer who established a legal firm, said proof 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 survivors, and I want them to get explanations and criminal justice and compensation,” the attorney said. Certain allegations might be too tangential from a juridical perspective.

“It all comes down to evidence,” he said. A lawyer would need to prove causation, which would mean “but for the defendant’s conduct, the injury wouldn’t have happened”. In this instance, that would translate to “but for the bank’s conduct, the survivor maybe wouldn’t have been trafficked”, the lawyer explained.

A lawyer would also have to go beyond a “but for” measure. “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 bank’s actions has to have been a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff harm.

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

Regardless of legal responsibility, such lawsuits could serve as a warning that associations with those involved in alleged crimes can have negative consequences for them.

“It represents a reputational disaster,” Rahmani noted. If the financial institutions try to get these cases dismissed and are unsuccessful, Rahmani anticipates a quick resolution. “No one wants to go litigate any of the Epstein-related cases.”

Eric Faddis, a trial attorney and principal 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, if they were informed 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 difficult to effectively connect the banks into some kind of trafficking operation. The institutions would likely not be aware of the details of claims,” Faddis said. While the financier’s prior legal case was public, “it’s not illegal for a bank to have a customer who’s an disreputable individual”.

“However, it is unlawful for a financial firm to in any way be involved in the criminal activity of a customer, but those two issues are very different, and so I think that it’s going to be a tough lawsuit against the banks.”

Potential Benefits for Victims

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

“The lawsuits have the potential to reveal more information about the continuing Epstein story,” Faddis said. “Even though there have been obstacles erected at every turn for folks pursuing this data, when there’s a lawsuit, there’s a evidence-gathering phase, and that legal procedure often mandates disclosure of materials that was not formerly available.”

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

“Legal actions are essential for full accountability for the victims of Jeffrey Epstein – as well as for future would-be victims who will be harmed from comparable criminal networks – if our financial institutions are not held accountable for the crucial part each performs, either in supplying the required framework for the illegal operation or recognizing the monetary aspect of these crimes and stopping it.

Edwards continued: “Our prospects are significantly higher of making a real difference than Congress, because we know the details and background of the case and are not motivated by partisan interests but rather by a genuine desire to create substantial impact and to protect the survivors, who have already suffered tremendously.

“Our handling of these issues without any political agenda and thus cannot be deterred by shutdowns, shielding influential figures, or the other shameful political maneuvering you and the rest of the world have had to observe recently.”

McCawley said in a declaration: “While legislators attempt to uncover how the financier was able to orchestrate his criminal sex-trafficking enterprise for many years 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 vigorously defend against it.”

The bank’s response similarly remarked: “We intend to firmly protect our interests in this case.”