🔗 Share this article

For years, survivors of the late financier Jeffrey Epstein have sought justice. For a while, it seemed like they would achieve 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 exploitation of underage females – and sentenced to 20 years imprisonment.

At the same time, financial firms that had done business with Epstein, although not accepting fault, paid hundreds of millions in settlements to victims. Former President Trump even made releasing the documents related to the Epstein probe part of his election promises, and reiterated on his commitment to do so in recent months.

Ultimately, the administration’s Department of Justice did not make public these records, and his government has become involved in allegations about social ties between him and Epstein. Assurances from lawmakers to release files have stalled, due to political jockeying and justice department foot-dragging.

But recent legal actions could provide clarity on Epstein’s operations amid the deadlock – irrespective of their outcome.

Lawsuits Target Leading Financial Institutions

These lawsuits, submitted by an anonymous plaintiff against Bank of America and the BNY Mellon, allege that these banking giants illicitly enabled Epstein’s sex trafficking. The suits are led by attorney Sigrid McCawley, of Boies Schiller Flexner, and Brad Edwards of his legal practice, who have long represented survivors of Epstein’s abuse.

“Epstein committed these crimes by means of not only his own vast fortune and power, but through financial backing and financial support from both private parties and organizations, including BNY,” one lawsuit claims. “Shockingly, BNY had a plethora of information regarding Epstein’s sex trafficking operation but opted for financial gain over safeguarding those harmed.”

The complaint against Bank of America echoes these allegations, declaring the institution “deliberately supplied the monetary resources and the appearance of respectability for Epstein and his co-conspirators to fuel their global trafficking enterprise under the guise of non-criminal business activities”. The suit also said the bank failed to file suspicious activity reports.

Attorneys Weigh In on Case Challenges

Longtime attorneys who commented on the situation said establishing liability would be challenging. But they also noted potential results which could offer comfort to accusers or disclosure of long-sought information.

Attorney Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor who founded a legal firm, said evidence has to show that an institution’s actions resulted in harm.

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

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

A lawyer would also have to go further than a “but for” measure. “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 wrongdoing … the bank’s actions 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? I don’t know.”

Liability aside, such lawsuits could put institutions on notice that associations with those accused of wrongdoing can have damaging implications for them.

“It’s a PR nightmare,” he said. If the banks try to get these suits dismissed and fail, the attorney anticipates a quick resolution. “No party desires to pursue any of the Epstein-related cases.”

Attorney Eric Faddis, a trial attorney and founder of the legal practice his firm and former prosecutor, said companies can be responsible. In this situation, “if the institutions bear fault is going to hinge, in part, on what the banks knew, whether they had any knowledge of claimed misconduct or criminal wrongdoing”, and in some way provided assistance to Epstein.

“But even then, I think it’s going to be difficult to sort of loop the financial entities into some kind of sex-trafficking scheme. The institutions would probably not be aware of the details of claims,” Faddis said. While the financier’s prior legal case was known, “it’s not illegal for a bank to have a client who’s an unsavory person”.

“However, it is unlawful for a bank to somehow be involved in the illegal actions of a customer, but these aspects are distinct, and so I think that it’s going to be a tough lawsuit against the banks.”

Possible Advantages for Survivors

Nevertheless, key elements of the litigation could assist Epstein survivors.

“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 legal action, there’s a discovery process, and that discovery process often mandates release of materials that was not previously public.”

Attorney Brad Edwards said in a comment that the lawsuits could have a preventive impact and achieve what lawmakers have been unable 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 banks are not made responsible for the essential role each performs, either in supplying the required framework for the illegal operation or recognizing the monetary aspect of these crimes and putting an end to it.

He added: “Our prospects are significantly higher of making a real difference than Congress, because we understand the details and history of the matter and are not driven by partisan interests but rather by a sincere intention to create substantial impact and to safeguard the survivors, who have already endured immense pain.

“We approach these matters without any partisan motives and thus cannot be deterred by obstructions, protecting wealthy politically connected individuals, or the other embarrassing partisan gamesmanship you and the rest of the world have had to observe recently.”

McCawley said in a declaration: “As Congress works toward unraveling how the financier was able to orchestrate his criminal sex-trafficking enterprise for decades without being caught, we are taking another important step forward toward justice for victims.”

Bank Responses

When requested for a statement on the legal complaint, the Bank of New York Mellon said: “The allegations in the case are baseless, and we will strongly contest against it.”

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