🔗 Share this article

For years, victims of Jeffrey Epstein have demanded justice. At one point, it appeared like they would get it.

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 sexual abuse of underage females – and given to two decades behind bars.

At the same time, financial firms that had worked with Epstein, while not admitting wrongdoing, paid hundreds of millions in agreements to survivors. Former President Trump even made disclosing the Epstein investigative files part of his election promises, and doubled down on his commitment to do so in recent months.

In the end, the administration’s Department of Justice did not release these records, and his government has become involved in reports about personal connections between him and Epstein. Assurances from lawmakers to disclose documents have lagged, 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 outcome.

Lawsuits Target Leading Financial Institutions

These lawsuits, submitted by an unnamed accuser against a major U.S. bank and the BNY Mellon, allege that these financial powerhouses illicitly enabled Epstein’s sex trafficking. The suits are helmed by Sigrid S McCawley, of Boies Schiller Flexner, and Brad Edwards of his legal practice, who have consistently advocated for survivors of Epstein’s abuse.

“Epstein committed these crimes by means of not only his own extraordinary wealth and influence, but through access to funding and financial support from both private parties and institutions, including the bank,” one lawsuit claims. “Egregiously, BNY had a plethora of information regarding Epstein’s trafficking network but chose profit over protecting the victims.”

The complaint against Bank of America mirrors these claims, asserting 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 pretext of non-criminal business activities”. The suit also said Bank of America neglected to file mandatory financial alerts.

Legal Experts Offer Perspectives on Legal Hurdles

Longtime attorneys who commented on the matter said establishing liability would be challenging. But they also noted potential results which could provide solace to plaintiffs or release of previously hidden details.

Attorney Neama Rahmani, a ex-government lawyer who established West Coast Trial lawyers, said evidence has to show that an bank’s conduct resulted in 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 legal redress and financial recovery,” Rahmani said. Certain allegations might be not directly related from a legal standpoint.

“The case hinges on proof,” Rahmani said. A attorney would need to prove causation, which would mean “if not for the bank’s actions, the harm 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.

An attorney would also have to go beyond a “but for” measure. “Is not just ‘but for’ causation. It also has to be a substantial factor: that is the standard. So whatever misconduct there was, if there was any wrongdoing … the defendant’s misconduct has to have been a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff harm.

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

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

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

Eric Faddis, a litigator and principal of the Colorado law firm Varner Faddis and former prosecutor, said corporations can be liable. In this situation, “whether the banks have liability is going to depend, in part, on their level of awareness, if they were informed of claimed misconduct or illegal acts”, and somehow provided assistance to Epstein.

“But even then, I think it’s going to be difficult to sort of loop the banks into some kind of trafficking operation. The banks would likely not be aware of the particulars of allegations,” the lawyer said. While Epstein’s Florida conviction was public, “there’s no law against for a financial institution to have a client who’s an disreputable individual”.

“It is illegal for a bank to in any way be involved in the criminal activity of a client, but these aspects are distinct, and so I think that it’s going to be a difficult case against the banks.”

Possible Advantages for Victims

Nevertheless, important aspects of the litigation could assist Epstein survivors.

“These cases may uncover additional details about the ongoing Epstein saga,” Faddis said. “Even though there have been obstacles erected at every turn for individuals seeking this data, when there’s a lawsuit, there’s a evidence-gathering phase, and that discovery process often mandates release of information that was not previously public.”

Attorney Brad Edwards said in a statement that the lawsuits could have a preventive impact and accomplish what legislators 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 suffer from comparable criminal networks – if our financial institutions are not made responsible for the crucial part each plays, either in supplying the required framework for the criminal enterprise or recognizing the monetary aspect of these crimes and stopping it.

He added: “Our prospects are significantly higher of effecting meaningful change than Congress, because we understand the details and history of the matter and are not motivated by politics but rather by a genuine desire to make a real difference and to protect the survivors, 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 observe recently.”

Attorney Sigrid McCawley said in a declaration: “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 legal resolution for survivors.”

Bank Responses

When requested for a statement on the lawsuit, 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 likewise stated: “We will vigorously defend ourselves in this case.”