🔗 Share this article

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

Epstein’s former associate Ghislaine Maxwell, the financier’s one-time partner, was convicted of human trafficking in a 2021 trial for her role in the late financier’s exploitation of teen girls – and sentenced to two decades behind bars.

At the same time, financial firms that had worked with Epstein, although not accepting fault, agreed to pay 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 promise to do so in recent months.

Ultimately, Trump’s justice department did not make public these records, and his administration has become embroiled in allegations about social ties between him and Epstein. Assurances from lawmakers to disclose documents have lagged, due to partisan maneuvering and delays from federal authorities.

But recent legal actions could shed light on Epstein’s operations amid the stalemate – regardless of their result.

Legal Actions Aim at Leading Financial Institutions

The legal complaints, submitted by an anonymous plaintiff against a major U.S. bank and the Bank of New York Mellon (BNY), claim that these banking giants unlawfully facilitated Epstein’s trafficking ring. The suits are led by attorney Sigrid McCawley, of Boies Schiller Flexner, and lawyer 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 vast fortune and influence, but through access to funding and monetary assistance from both private parties and institutions, including BNY,” the legal filing states. “Egregiously, the institution had a abundance of knowledge regarding Epstein’s sex trafficking operation but chose profit over protecting the victims.”

The complaint against Bank of America echoes these allegations, declaring the institution “deliberately supplied the monetary resources 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 Bank of America neglected to file mandatory financial alerts.

Attorneys Offer Perspectives on Legal Hurdles

Experienced lawyers who commented on the situation said establishing liability would be challenging. But they also noted possible outcomes which could provide solace to plaintiffs or disclosure of long-sought information.

Attorney Neama Rahmani, a ex-government lawyer who established a legal firm, said proof has to show that an bank’s conduct resulted in harm.

“I don’t think the lawsuit has much of a chance of success – and obviously I am on the side of the survivors, and I want them to get explanations and legal redress and financial recovery,” Rahmani said. Some claims might be too tangential from a juridical perspective.

“It all comes down to evidence,” Rahmani said. A attorney would need to prove causation, which would mean “if not for the bank’s actions, the harm wouldn’t have occurred”. In this case, that would translate to “absent the institution’s involvement, the survivor maybe wouldn’t have been trafficked”, the lawyer explained.

An attorney 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 any improper behavior there was, if there was any misconduct … the defendant’s misconduct has to have been a substantial factor in leading to the victim’s suffering.

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

Regardless of legal responsibility, suits like this could serve as a warning that relationships with those accused of wrongdoing can have negative consequences for them.

“It’s a PR nightmare,” Rahmani noted. If the banks try to get these suits thrown out and fail, the attorney expects a swift settlement. “No party desires to pursue any of the legal matters tied to Epstein.”

Attorney Eric Faddis, a litigator and principal of the legal practice his firm and former prosecutor, said companies can be liable. In this situation, “if the institutions bear fault is going to hinge, in part, on what the banks knew, if they were informed of alleged abuse or criminal wrongdoing”, and somehow offered support to Epstein.

“But even then, I think it’s going to be difficult to effectively connect the banks into some kind of trafficking operation. The institutions would likely not be privy to the details of claims,” the lawyer said. While Epstein’s Florida conviction was known, “it’s not illegal for a financial institution to have a customer who’s an disreputable individual”.

“However, it is unlawful for a bank to somehow 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 banks.”

Potential Benefits for Victims

Nevertheless, key elements of the litigation could assist those affected by Epstein.

“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 folks seeking this data, when there’s a lawsuit, there’s a discovery process, and that legal procedure often mandates disclosure of materials that was not previously public.”

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

“The lawsuits are necessary for complete justice for the victims 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 supplying the necessary infrastructure for the criminal enterprise or identifying the monetary aspect of these crimes and stopping it.

He added: “Our prospects are significantly higher of making a real difference than lawmakers, because we understand the details and background of the matter and are not motivated by partisan interests but rather by a genuine desire to make a real difference and to safeguard the survivors, who have already endured immense pain.

“Our handling of these issues without any political agenda and thus will not be swayed 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 conduct his illegal trafficking operation for many years without detection, we are taking a further significant action forward toward legal resolution for survivors.”

Institutional Reactions

Asked for comment on the lawsuit, the Bank of New York Mellon said: “The claims in the lawsuit are meritless, and we will strongly contest against it.”

Bank of America’s statement likewise stated: “We will vigorously defend ourselves in this matter.”