🔗 Share this article

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

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

Meanwhile, financial firms that had worked with Epstein, while not admitting wrongdoing, paid substantial sums in agreements to victims. Donald Trump even made disclosing the Epstein investigative files part of his election promises, and reiterated on his promise to do so in recent months.

In the end, the administration’s Department of Justice did not make public these files, and his administration has become embroiled in reports about personal connections between him and Epstein. Congressional promises to release files have lagged, due to political jockeying and delays from federal authorities.

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

Lawsuits Aim at Major Banks

The legal complaints, filed by an anonymous plaintiff against a major U.S. bank and the Bank of New York Mellon (BNY), claim that these financial powerhouses unlawfully facilitated Epstein’s trafficking ring. The cases are led by Sigrid S McCawley, of Boies Schiller Flexner, and Brad Edwards of Edwards Henderson, who have long represented survivors of Epstein’s abuse.

“Epstein committed these crimes by means of not only his own extraordinary wealth and influence, but through financial backing and financial support from both individuals and institutions, including BNY,” the legal filing states. “Shockingly, BNY had a plethora of information regarding Epstein’s trafficking network but opted for financial gain over safeguarding those harmed.”

The complaint against Bank of America mirrors these claims, declaring the institution “knowingly provided the financial support and the appearance of respectability for Epstein and his accomplices to fuel their international sex trafficking organization under the guise of non-criminal business activities”. The suit also said the bank neglected to file mandatory financial alerts.

Legal Experts Offer Perspectives on Case Challenges

Longtime attorneys who commented on the situation said proving such a case would be challenging. But they also identified potential results which could provide solace to plaintiffs or release of long-sought information.

Neama Rahmani, a ex-government lawyer who founded West Coast Trial lawyers, said evidence has to show that an bank’s conduct 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 victims, and I want them to get explanations and criminal justice and compensation,” Rahmani said. Certain allegations might be too tangential from a legal standpoint.

“The case hinges on proof,” Rahmani said. A lawyer would need to prove cause and effect, which would mean “but for the defendant’s conduct, the harm wouldn’t have occurred”. In this instance, that would boil down to “absent the institution’s involvement, the victim maybe wouldn’t have been trafficked”, the lawyer explained.

A lawyer would also have to go further than a basic causation test. “Is not just ‘but for’ causation. It also has to be a substantial factor: that is the legal test. So whatever misconduct there was, if there was any wrongdoing … the bank’s actions has to have been a substantial factor in causing the victim’s suffering.

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

Regardless of legal responsibility, suits like this could put institutions on notice that associations with those involved in alleged crimes can have negative consequences for them.

“It’s a PR nightmare,” he said. If the banks try to get these suits dismissed and fail, the attorney expects a quick resolution. “No party desires to pursue any of the legal matters tied to Epstein.”

Attorney Eric Faddis, a trial attorney and principal of the legal practice Varner Faddis and former prosecutor, said companies can be responsible. In this scenario, “whether the banks have liability is going to hinge, in part, on what the banks knew, whether they had any knowledge of alleged abuse or criminal wrongdoing”, and somehow 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 banks would likely not be aware of the particulars of allegations,” Faddis said. While Epstein’s Florida conviction was public, “there’s no law against for a bank to have a client who’s an unsavory person”.

“It is illegal for a financial firm to in any way be involved in the illegal actions of a client, but these aspects 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.

“These cases may uncover additional details about the ongoing Epstein saga,” Faddis 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 legal action, there’s a discovery process, and that legal procedure often mandates disclosure of information that was not formerly available.”

Edwards said in a comment that the suits could have a preventive impact and accomplish what legislators 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 suffer from similar trafficking organizations – if our banks are not made responsible for the essential role each plays, either in supplying the required framework for the criminal enterprise or recognizing the monetary aspect of these crimes and putting an end to it.

Edwards continued: “We have a far better chance of effecting meaningful change than Congress, because we know the facts and background of the case and are not driven by partisan interests but rather by a genuine desire 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 cannot be deterred 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 declaration: “As Congress works toward unraveling how the financier was able to orchestrate his illegal trafficking operation for many years without being caught, we are taking another important step forward toward legal resolution for victims.”

Bank Responses

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

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