🔗 Share this article

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

Epstein’s former associate Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s ex-girlfriend, was convicted of human trafficking in a 2021 trial for her role in the deceased billionaire’s sexual abuse of underage females – and given to 20 years imprisonment.

Meanwhile, banks that had done business with Epstein, while not admitting wrongdoing, paid substantial sums in settlements to victims. Former President Trump even made releasing the Epstein investigative files part of his campaign platform, and doubled down on his commitment to do so early this year.

Ultimately, Trump’s justice department did not make public these files, and his administration has become embroiled in reports about social ties between him and Epstein. Assurances from lawmakers to release files have stalled, due to political jockeying and justice department foot-dragging.

However two new lawsuits could provide clarity on Epstein’s operations amid the deadlock – regardless of their result.

Lawsuits Target Leading Financial Institutions

The legal complaints, filed by an unnamed accuser against Bank of America and the BNY Mellon, claim that these banking giants illicitly enabled Epstein’s trafficking ring. The suits are helmed by Sigrid S McCawley, of a prominent law firm, and lawyer Brad Edwards of Edwards Henderson, who have long represented Epstein victims.

“The financier carried out these offenses by means of not only his own vast fortune and power, but through access to funding and financial support from both individuals and organizations, including the bank,” one lawsuit 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 echoes these allegations, declaring the institution “knowingly provided the financial support and the veneer of institutional legitimacy for Epstein and his accomplices to fuel their international sex trafficking organization under the guise of legal commercial dealings”. The suit also said the bank failed to file suspicious activity reports.

Legal Experts Offer Perspectives on Case Challenges

Longtime attorneys who spoke to the matter said proving such a case would be challenging. But they also noted potential results which could offer comfort to accusers or disclosure of long-sought information.

Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor 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 obviously I am on the side of the victims, and I want them to get answers and legal redress and financial recovery,” the attorney said. Some claims might be not directly related from a juridical perspective.

“The case hinges on proof,” he said. A attorney would need to prove causation, which would mean “but for the defendant’s conduct, the injury wouldn’t have happened”. In this instance, that would translate to “but for the bank’s conduct, the survivor maybe wouldn’t have been trafficked”, Rahmani explained.

A lawyer would also have to go beyond a basic causation test. “Is not just ‘but for’ causation. It also has to be a significant element: that is the standard. So any improper behavior there was, if there was any misconduct … the bank’s actions has to have been a substantial factor in leading to the plaintiff harm.

“By engaging in a business relationship with Epstein, is that a substantial factor? It’s uncertain.”

Liability aside, suits like this could serve as a warning that associations with those accused of wrongdoing can have damaging implications for them.

“It’s a PR nightmare,” Rahmani noted. If the banks try to get these cases dismissed and fail, Rahmani expects a quick resolution. “No one wants to go litigate any of the Epstein-related cases.”

Eric Faddis, a litigator and founder of the legal practice Varner Faddis and ex-government lawyer, said companies can be responsible. 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 offered support 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 banks would probably not be privy to the details of claims,” Faddis said. While Epstein’s Florida conviction was known, “it’s not illegal for a financial institution to have a customer who’s an unsavory person”.

“It is illegal for a bank 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 difficult case against the banks.”

Possible Advantages for Victims

Nevertheless, key elements of the litigation 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 discovery process often mandates release of information that was not previously public.”

Attorney Brad Edwards said in a comment that the suits could have a preventive impact and achieve what lawmakers have failed to do.

“Legal actions are essential for full accountability for the survivors 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 essential role each plays, either in supplying the required framework for the criminal enterprise or recognizing the financial component of these crimes and putting an end to it.

He added: “We have a far better chance of making a real difference than lawmakers, because we understand the facts and background of the case and are not driven by politics but rather by a genuine desire to create substantial impact and to safeguard the survivors, who have already suffered tremendously.

“Our handling of these issues without any partisan motives and thus will not be swayed by shutdowns, 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: “While legislators attempt to uncover how the financier was able to orchestrate his criminal sex-trafficking enterprise for decades without detection, we are taking another important step forward toward legal resolution for victims.”

Institutional Reactions

When requested for a statement on the legal complaint, BNY said: “The claims in the lawsuit are meritless, and we will strongly contest against it.”

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