🔗 Share this article

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

Epstein’s former associate Ghislaine Maxwell, the financier’s one-time partner, was found guilty of sex trafficking four years ago for her role in the deceased billionaire’s sexual abuse of teen girls – and given to 20 years imprisonment.

At the same time, banks that had worked with Epstein, although not admitting wrongdoing, agreed to pay 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 reiterated on his commitment to do so early this year.

In the end, Trump’s justice department did not release these records, and his administration has become embroiled in allegations about social ties between him and Epstein. Congressional promises to disclose documents have stalled, due to partisan maneuvering and justice department foot-dragging.

But two new lawsuits could provide clarity on Epstein’s activities amid the deadlock – irrespective of their result.

Legal Actions Aim at Major Banks

The legal complaints, submitted by an anonymous plaintiff against Bank of America and the Bank of New York Mellon (BNY), allege that these financial powerhouses illicitly enabled Epstein’s sex trafficking. The suits are led by Sigrid S McCawley, of Boies Schiller Flexner, 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 access to funding and financial support from both individuals and organizations, including BNY,” one lawsuit claims. “Shockingly, BNY had a abundance of knowledge regarding Epstein’s sex trafficking operation but chose profit over protecting the victims.”

The complaint against Bank of America mirrors these claims, declaring the institution “deliberately supplied the financial support and the veneer of institutional legitimacy for Epstein and his co-conspirators to fuel their international sex trafficking organization under the guise of non-criminal business activities”. The suit also said the bank failed to file mandatory financial alerts.

Legal Experts Weigh In on Case Challenges

Experienced lawyers who spoke to the situation said establishing liability would be difficult. But they also identified potential results which could offer comfort to accusers or release of long-sought information.

Attorney Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor who established a legal firm, said proof has to show that an institution’s actions 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 answers and criminal justice and compensation,” the attorney said. Certain allegations might be not directly related from a legal standpoint.

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

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 significant element: that is the legal test. So any improper behavior there was, if there was any wrongdoing … the defendant’s misconduct has to have been a substantial factor in leading to the plaintiff harm.

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

Liability aside, such lawsuits could serve as a warning that associations with those involved in alleged crimes can have damaging implications for them.

“It represents a reputational disaster,” Rahmani noted. If the banks try to get these suits dismissed and are unsuccessful, the attorney anticipates a quick resolution. “No party desires to pursue any of the Epstein-related cases.”

Attorney Eric Faddis, a litigator and founder of the Colorado law firm Varner Faddis and ex-government lawyer, said corporations can be liable. In this situation, “if the institutions bear fault is going to hinge, in part, on their level of awareness, if they were informed of alleged abuse or illegal acts”, and in some way offered support to Epstein.

“But even then, I think it’s going to be hard to effectively connect the banks into some kind of trafficking operation. The institutions would probably not be aware of the details of claims,” Faddis said. While Epstein’s Florida conviction was public, “it’s not illegal for a financial institution to have a customer who’s an unsavory person”.

“However, it is unlawful for a financial firm to in any way be complicit in the criminal activity of a customer, but these aspects 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 help Epstein survivors.

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

Attorney Brad Edwards said in a statement that the lawsuits could have a deterrent effect and accomplish what legislators have been unable to do.

“The lawsuits are necessary for complete justice for the survivors of Jeffrey Epstein – as well as for future would-be victims who will be harmed from similar trafficking organizations – if our banks are not held accountable for the crucial part each plays, either in providing the necessary infrastructure for the illegal operation or identifying the financial component of these crimes and stopping it.

He added: “We have a far better chance of effecting meaningful change than Congress, because we know the facts and background of the matter and are not driven by partisan interests but rather by a sincere intention to make a real difference and to safeguard the victims, who have already suffered tremendously.

“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 statement: “While legislators attempt to uncover how Jeffrey Epstein was able to conduct his illegal trafficking operation for decades without detection, we are taking a further significant action forward toward justice for survivors.”

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.”

The bank’s response likewise stated: “We intend to firmly protect our interests in this matter.”