🔗 Share this article

Over many years, survivors of Jeffrey Epstein have demanded justice. At one point, 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 involvement in the late financier’s exploitation of teen girls – and sentenced to 20 years imprisonment.

Meanwhile, financial firms that had worked with Epstein, while not admitting wrongdoing, agreed to pay substantial sums 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 involved in allegations about personal connections between him and Epstein. Assurances from lawmakers to disclose documents have stalled, due to partisan maneuvering and delays from federal authorities.

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

Lawsuits Target Leading Financial Institutions

These lawsuits, submitted by an unnamed accuser against Bank of America and the BNY Mellon, allege that these financial powerhouses unlawfully facilitated Epstein’s sex trafficking. The suits are helmed by attorney Sigrid McCawley, of a prominent law firm, and Brad Edwards of his legal practice, who have long represented Epstein victims.

“Epstein committed these crimes by means of not only his own vast fortune and power, but through access to funding and financial support from both private parties and institutions, including BNY,” one lawsuit states. “Shockingly, BNY had a plethora of information regarding Epstein’s sex trafficking operation but opted for financial gain over protecting the victims.”

The complaint against Bank of America echoes these allegations, declaring the institution “knowingly provided the financial support and the appearance of respectability for Epstein and his co-conspirators to fuel their international sex trafficking organization under the guise of legal commercial dealings”. The legal action also said Bank of America failed to file suspicious activity reports.

Attorneys Weigh In on Case Challenges

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

Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor who founded a legal firm, said evidence has to show that an bank’s conduct 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 survivors, and I want them to get answers and criminal justice 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 cause and effect, which would mean “but for the defendant’s conduct, the harm wouldn’t have happened”. In this instance, that would boil down to “absent the institution’s involvement, the victim maybe wouldn’t have been exploited”, Rahmani explained.

An attorney 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 whatever misconduct there was, if there was any wrongdoing … the bank’s actions has to have been a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff harm.

“Through maintaining financial ties to Epstein, is that a substantial factor? It’s uncertain.”

Regardless of legal responsibility, such lawsuits could serve as a warning that associations with those accused of wrongdoing can have negative consequences for them.

“It represents a reputational disaster,” Rahmani noted. If the banks try to get these suits thrown out and are unsuccessful, the attorney anticipates a quick resolution. “No one wants to go litigate any of the legal matters tied to Epstein.”

Attorney Eric Faddis, a litigator and founder of the Colorado law firm his firm and ex-government lawyer, said corporations can be liable. In this situation, “if the institutions bear fault is going to depend, in part, on their level of awareness, whether they had any knowledge of alleged abuse or illegal acts”, and somehow provided assistance to Epstein.

“However, even in that case, I think it’s going to be difficult to effectively connect the banks into some kind of sex-trafficking scheme. The banks would likely not be privy to the particulars of allegations,” Faddis said. While Epstein’s Florida conviction was public, “it’s not illegal 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 complicit in the illegal actions of a client, but these aspects are very different, and so I think that it’s going to be a difficult case against the banks.”

Potential Benefits for Survivors

Nevertheless, important aspects of the legal proceedings 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 seeking this information, when there’s a legal action, there’s a discovery process, and that legal procedure often mandates release of materials that was not formerly available.”

Edwards said in a comment that the lawsuits could have a preventive impact and achieve what legislators 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 performs, either in supplying the necessary infrastructure 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 making a real difference than Congress, because we understand the details and history of the case and are not motivated by partisan interests but rather by a sincere intention to make a real difference and to safeguard the victims, who have already suffered tremendously.

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

Attorney Sigrid McCawley said in a declaration: “While legislators attempt to uncover how Jeffrey Epstein was able to conduct his criminal sex-trafficking enterprise for decades without being caught, we are taking a further significant action forward toward legal resolution for survivors.”

Bank Responses

When requested for a statement on the legal complaint, the Bank of New York Mellon 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.”