🔗 Share this article

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

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

Meanwhile, financial firms that had done business with Epstein, while not admitting wrongdoing, agreed to pay substantial sums in settlements to survivors. Donald Trump even made releasing the Epstein investigative files part of his campaign platform, and doubled down on his promise to do so early this year.

In the end, Trump’s justice department did not make public these records, and his government has become embroiled in reports about personal connections between him and Epstein. Congressional promises to disclose documents have lagged, due to partisan maneuvering and delays from federal authorities.

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

Legal Actions Aim at Major Banks

These lawsuits, submitted by an anonymous plaintiff 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 suits are helmed by attorney Sigrid McCawley, of a prominent law firm, and lawyer Brad Edwards of Edwards Henderson, who have consistently advocated for survivors of Epstein’s abuse.

“Epstein committed these crimes by means of not only his own extraordinary wealth and power, but through financial backing and monetary assistance from both private parties and institutions, including BNY,” one lawsuit claims. “Shockingly, BNY had a plethora of information regarding Epstein’s trafficking network but opted for financial gain over safeguarding those harmed.”

The Bank of America suit echoes these allegations, asserting the institution “deliberately supplied the financial support and the veneer of institutional legitimacy for Epstein and his co-conspirators to support their international sex trafficking organization under the guise of legal commercial dealings”. The suit also said Bank of America neglected to file mandatory financial alerts.

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 accusers or release of long-sought information.

Attorney Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor who established West Coast Trial lawyers, said proof 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 clearly I am on the side of the survivors, and I want them to get explanations and legal redress and compensation,” the attorney said. Certain allegations might be not directly related from a legal standpoint.

“The case hinges on proof,” Rahmani said. A lawyer would need to prove causation, which would mean “but for the defendant’s conduct, the harm wouldn’t have occurred”. In this case, that would boil down to “but for the bank’s conduct, the survivor maybe wouldn’t have been exploited”, the lawyer clarified.

A lawyer 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 standard. So any improper behavior there was, if there was any misconduct … the defendant’s misconduct has to have been a substantial factor in causing the victim’s suffering.

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

Liability aside, 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,” he said. If the banks try to get these cases thrown out and fail, Rahmani expects a swift settlement. “No one wants to go litigate any of the legal matters tied to Epstein.”

Attorney Eric Faddis, a litigator and principal of the Colorado law firm his firm and ex-government lawyer, said companies can be liable. In this scenario, “if the institutions bear fault is going to hinge, in part, on what the banks knew, whether they had any knowledge of claimed misconduct or illegal acts”, and somehow offered support to Epstein.

“But even then, I think it’s going to be hard to sort of loop the banks into some kind of trafficking operation. The banks would probably not be privy to the particulars of claims,” Faddis said. While the financier’s prior legal case was known, “there’s no law against for a financial institution to have a customer who’s an unsavory person”.

“It is illegal for a bank to somehow be complicit in the illegal actions of a client, but those two issues are very different, and so I think that it’s going to be a difficult case against the banks.”

Possible Advantages for Survivors

That said, key elements of the legal proceedings could assist Epstein survivors.

“The lawsuits have the potential to reveal more information about the continuing Epstein story,” the attorney said. “Despite the fact that 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 discovery process often mandates disclosure of information that was not formerly available.”

Attorney Brad Edwards said in a statement that the suits could have a preventive impact and accomplish what legislators have been unable to do.

“The lawsuits are necessary for complete justice for the victims of the financier – as well as for potential targets who will be harmed from similar trafficking organizations – if our financial institutions are not made responsible for the crucial part each performs, either in providing the required framework for the illegal operation or recognizing the financial component of these offenses and putting an end to it.

Edwards continued: “Our prospects are significantly higher of making a real difference than Congress, because we know the facts and background of the case and are not driven by partisan interests but rather by a sincere intention to create substantial impact and to safeguard the victims, who have already suffered tremendously.

“We approach these matters without any political agenda and thus will not be swayed by shutdowns, shielding influential figures, or the other shameful political maneuvering you and the rest of the world have had to observe recently.”

Attorney Sigrid McCawley said in a declaration: “As Congress works toward unraveling how Jeffrey Epstein was able to orchestrate his criminal sex-trafficking enterprise for many years without being caught, we are taking a further significant action forward toward legal resolution for victims.”

Bank Responses

When requested for a statement 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.”