🔗 Share this article

For years, survivors of Jeffrey Epstein have demanded justice. For a while, it seemed like they would get it.

Epstein’s former associate Ghislaine Maxwell, the financier’s one-time partner, was convicted of sex trafficking in a 2021 trial for her involvement in the deceased billionaire’s exploitation of teen girls – and sentenced to 20 years imprisonment.

At the same time, banks 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 election promises, and doubled down on his promise to do so in recent months.

Ultimately, Trump’s justice department did not release these records, and his administration has become involved in allegations about social ties between him and Epstein. Congressional promises to release files have stalled, due to partisan maneuvering and delays from federal authorities.

However recent legal actions could shed light on Epstein’s operations amid the deadlock – regardless of their outcome.

Lawsuits Aim at Leading Financial Institutions

The legal complaints, submitted by an anonymous plaintiff against Bank of America and the Bank of New York Mellon (BNY), claim that these financial powerhouses unlawfully facilitated Epstein’s sex trafficking. The cases are helmed by Sigrid S McCawley, of Boies Schiller Flexner, and Brad Edwards of his legal practice, who have long represented Epstein victims.

“The financier carried out these offenses by means of not only his own extraordinary wealth and influence, but through financial backing and financial support from both individuals and organizations, including BNY,” the legal filing states. “Egregiously, BNY had a abundance of knowledge regarding Epstein’s trafficking network but chose profit over safeguarding those harmed.”

The Bank of America suit echoes these allegations, declaring the institution “deliberately supplied 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 suit also said the bank failed to file mandatory financial alerts.

Attorneys Offer Perspectives on Legal Hurdles

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

Attorney Neama Rahmani, a ex-government lawyer who founded a legal firm, 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 victims, and I want them to get explanations and legal redress and compensation,” Rahmani said. Certain allegations might be not directly related from a legal standpoint.

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

An attorney would also have to go further than a “but for” measure. “Is not just ‘but for’ causation. It also has to be a substantial factor: 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 leading to 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 put institutions on notice that associations with those involved in alleged crimes can have damaging implications for them.

“It’s a PR nightmare,” he said. If the banks try to get these cases dismissed 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 founder of the legal practice his firm and former prosecutor, said companies can be liable. In this scenario, “whether the banks have liability is going to hinge, in part, on their level of awareness, if they were informed of alleged abuse or criminal wrongdoing”, 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 financial entities into some kind of trafficking operation. The banks would probably not be privy to the particulars of claims,” Faddis said. While Epstein’s Florida conviction was known, “it’s not illegal for a financial institution to have a client who’s an disreputable individual”.

“However, it is unlawful for a bank to somehow be involved in the illegal actions of a customer, but those two issues are distinct, and so I think that it’s going to be a tough lawsuit against the banks.”

Possible Advantages for Survivors

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

“These cases may uncover additional details about the ongoing Epstein saga,” the attorney said. “Despite the fact that there have been obstacles erected at every turn for individuals seeking this information, when there’s a legal action, there’s a evidence-gathering phase, and that discovery process often requires release of information that was not previously public.”

Attorney Brad Edwards said in a statement that the suits could have a deterrent effect and achieve what lawmakers have failed to do.

“The lawsuits are necessary for complete justice for the survivors of the financier – as well as for future would-be victims who will be harmed from similar trafficking organizations – if our financial institutions are not held accountable for the essential role each plays, either in supplying the necessary infrastructure for the criminal enterprise or identifying the monetary aspect of these offenses and putting an end to it.

He added: “We have a far better chance of making a real difference than Congress, because we understand the facts and history of the case and are not motivated by politics 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 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: “While legislators attempt to uncover how the financier was able to orchestrate his illegal trafficking operation for many years without being caught, we are taking a further significant action 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 strongly contest against it.”

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