🔗 Share this article

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

Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s ex-girlfriend, was convicted of human trafficking in a 2021 trial for her involvement in the late financier’s exploitation of underage females – and sentenced to two decades behind bars.

At the same time, financial firms that had done business with Epstein, although not admitting wrongdoing, paid substantial sums in agreements to survivors. 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 early this year.

Ultimately, Trump’s justice department did not release these records, and his government has become embroiled in reports about personal connections between him and Epstein. Congressional promises to disclose documents have stalled, due to political jockeying and delays from federal authorities.

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

Legal Actions Aim at Major Banks

The legal complaints, filed by an unnamed accuser against Bank of America and the BNY Mellon, allege that these financial powerhouses unlawfully facilitated Epstein’s trafficking ring. The cases are helmed by attorney Sigrid McCawley, of Boies Schiller Flexner, and Brad Edwards of Edwards Henderson, who have consistently advocated for Epstein victims.

“The financier carried out these offenses by means of not only his own extraordinary wealth and influence, but through access to funding and monetary assistance from both individuals and institutions, including the bank,” one lawsuit claims. “Shockingly, the institution had a plethora of information regarding Epstein’s sex trafficking operation but opted for financial gain over safeguarding those harmed.”

The Bank of America suit echoes these allegations, declaring the institution “deliberately supplied the financial support and the veneer of institutional legitimacy for Epstein and his accomplices to support their international sex trafficking organization under the pretext of non-criminal business activities”. The suit also said Bank of America failed to file suspicious activity reports.

Legal Experts Offer Perspectives on Legal Hurdles

Experienced lawyers who commented on the situation said establishing liability would be difficult. But they also noted possible outcomes which could provide solace to accusers or release of previously hidden details.

Neama Rahmani, a ex-government lawyer who established a legal firm, said evidence has to show that an institution’s actions resulted in harm.

“In my view, the case faces significant obstacles – and clearly I am on the side of the victims, and I want them to get explanations and legal redress and financial recovery,” Rahmani said. Certain allegations might be not directly related from a legal standpoint.

“It all comes down to evidence,” Rahmani said. A lawyer would need to prove cause and effect, which would mean “if not for the bank’s actions, the harm wouldn’t have happened”. In this case, that would boil down to “but for the bank’s conduct, the victim maybe wouldn’t have been trafficked”, 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 significant element: that is the legal test. So any improper behavior there was, if there was any misconduct … the bank’s actions has to have been a key contributor in causing the victim’s suffering.

“By engaging in a business relationship with 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 represents a reputational disaster,” Rahmani noted. 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 trial attorney and principal of the legal practice his firm and former prosecutor, said corporations can be responsible. In this scenario, “if the institutions bear fault 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.

“But even then, I think it’s going to be difficult to effectively connect the banks into some kind of sex-trafficking scheme. The institutions would likely not be aware of the particulars of allegations,” Faddis said. While the financier’s prior legal case was known, “there’s no law against for a bank to have a customer who’s an disreputable individual”.

“However, it is unlawful for a financial firm to in any way 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 institutions.”

Possible Advantages for Survivors

That said, key elements of the litigation could help those affected by Epstein.

“The lawsuits have the potential to reveal more information about the continuing Epstein story,” the attorney said. “Even though there have been obstacles erected at every turn for individuals pursuing this data, when there’s a lawsuit, there’s a evidence-gathering phase, and that legal procedure often requires release of materials that was not formerly available.”

Attorney Brad Edwards said in a comment that the lawsuits could have a preventive impact and accomplish what legislators 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 suffer from comparable criminal networks – if our financial institutions are not held accountable for the crucial part each plays, either in supplying the required framework for the illegal operation 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 understand the facts and background of the matter and are not motivated by politics but rather by a sincere intention to make a real difference and to protect the survivors, who have already suffered tremendously.

“Our handling of these issues without any partisan motives 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.”

Attorney Sigrid McCawley said in a statement: “As Congress works toward unraveling how Jeffrey Epstein was able to orchestrate his illegal trafficking operation for many years without being caught, we are taking a further significant action forward toward justice for survivors.”

Bank Responses

Asked for comment on the legal complaint, the Bank of New York Mellon said: “The allegations in the case are baseless, and we will vigorously defend against it.”

The bank’s response similarly remarked: “We will vigorously defend ourselves in this matter.”