🔗 Share this article

For years, victims of the late financier Jeffrey Epstein have sought justice. For a while, it seemed like they would achieve it.

Epstein’s former associate Ghislaine Maxwell, the financier’s one-time partner, was found guilty of sex trafficking in a 2021 trial for her involvement in the late financier’s sexual abuse of teen girls – and given to two decades behind bars.

At the same time, financial firms that had worked with Epstein, although not accepting fault, paid hundreds of millions in settlements to victims. Former President Trump even made disclosing the documents related to the Epstein probe 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 files, and his government has become embroiled in reports about social ties between him and Epstein. Congressional promises to disclose documents have stalled, due to political jockeying and delays from federal authorities.

However recent legal actions could shed light on Epstein’s activities amid the stalemate – irrespective of their outcome.

Lawsuits Target Leading Financial Institutions

These lawsuits, submitted by an anonymous plaintiff against Bank of America and the Bank of New York Mellon (BNY), claim that these banking giants unlawfully facilitated Epstein’s sex trafficking. The suits are helmed by attorney Sigrid McCawley, of Boies Schiller Flexner, and 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 monetary assistance from both private parties and institutions, including the bank,” the legal filing claims. “Egregiously, 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 “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 legal commercial dealings”. The legal action also said Bank of America neglected to file mandatory financial alerts.

Legal Experts Offer Perspectives on Legal Hurdles

Longtime attorneys who spoke to the situation said proving such a case would be difficult. But they also identified potential results which could provide solace to plaintiffs or release of previously hidden details.

Attorney Neama Rahmani, a ex-government lawyer who established a legal firm, said evidence 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 victims, and I want them to get explanations and criminal justice and financial recovery,” Rahmani said. Some claims might be too tangential from a juridical perspective.

“It all comes down to evidence,” 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 instance, that would translate to “absent the institution’s involvement, the survivor maybe wouldn’t have been trafficked”, the lawyer explained.

An attorney would also have to go further than a basic causation test. “Is not just ‘but for’ causation. It also has to be a significant element: that is the legal test. So any improper behavior there was, if there was any misconduct … the defendant’s misconduct has to have been a key contributor in leading to the plaintiff harm.

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

Regardless of legal responsibility, such lawsuits could put institutions on notice that relationships with those involved in alleged crimes can have negative consequences for them.

“It’s a PR nightmare,” he said. If the financial institutions try to get these suits thrown out and are unsuccessful, Rahmani expects a swift settlement. “No party desires to pursue any of the Epstein-related cases.”

Eric Faddis, a trial attorney and founder of the Colorado law firm Varner Faddis and ex-government lawyer, said corporations can be responsible. In this situation, “if the institutions bear fault is going to hinge, in part, on what the banks knew, if they were informed of claimed misconduct or criminal wrongdoing”, and in some way provided assistance to Epstein.

“However, even in that case, I think it’s going to be difficult to sort of loop the financial entities into some kind of trafficking operation. The institutions would likely not be aware of the particulars of claims,” the lawyer said. While Epstein’s Florida conviction was public, “it’s not illegal for a bank to have a customer who’s an unsavory person”.

“It is illegal for a financial firm to in any way 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 institutions.”

Possible Advantages for Survivors

Nevertheless, key elements of the legal proceedings could help Epstein survivors.

“The lawsuits have the potential to reveal more information about the continuing Epstein story,” Faddis said. “Despite the fact that there have been sort of walls put up at every turn for folks seeking this data, when there’s a legal action, 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 been unable to do.

“Legal actions are essential for full accountability for the victims of the financier – as well as for potential targets who will be harmed from comparable criminal networks – if our financial institutions are not held accountable for the essential role each performs, either in providing the required framework for the illegal operation or recognizing the monetary aspect of these offenses and putting an end to it.

He added: “Our prospects are significantly higher of making a real difference than lawmakers, because we know 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 suffered tremendously.

“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.”

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 another important step forward toward justice for survivors.”

Bank Responses

Asked for comment on the lawsuit, the Bank of New York Mellon said: “The claims in the lawsuit are meritless, and we will vigorously defend against it.”

Bank of America’s statement likewise stated: “We intend to firmly protect our interests in this case.”