🔗 Share this article

Over many years, survivors of the late financier Jeffrey Epstein have demanded accountability. For a while, it seemed like they would get it.

Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s ex-girlfriend, was found guilty of human trafficking four years ago for her role in the deceased billionaire’s sexual abuse of underage females – and sentenced to two decades behind bars.

Meanwhile, financial firms that had done business with Epstein, although not admitting wrongdoing, paid substantial sums in settlements to victims. Donald 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 records, and his government has become involved in allegations about personal connections between him and Epstein. Congressional promises to release files have lagged, due to political jockeying and delays from federal authorities.

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

Legal Actions Target Major Banks

These lawsuits, filed by an unnamed accuser 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 cases are helmed by attorney Sigrid McCawley, of a prominent law firm, and Brad Edwards of his legal practice, who have consistently advocated for Epstein victims.

“The financier carried out these offenses by means of not only his own vast fortune and influence, but through financial backing and financial support from both individuals and organizations, including the bank,” one lawsuit states. “Shockingly, BNY had a plethora of information regarding Epstein’s sex trafficking operation but opted for financial gain over safeguarding those harmed.”

The Bank of America suit mirrors these claims, asserting the institution “knowingly provided the financial support and the veneer of institutional legitimacy for Epstein and his co-conspirators to fuel their global trafficking enterprise under the guise of non-criminal business activities”. The suit also said Bank of America failed to file suspicious activity reports.

Attorneys Offer Perspectives on Legal Hurdles

Experienced lawyers who spoke to the situation said proving such a case would be challenging. But they also noted potential results which could provide solace to plaintiffs or release of previously hidden details.

Neama Rahmani, a ex-government lawyer who founded West Coast Trial lawyers, said evidence 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 survivors, and I want them to get explanations and criminal justice and financial recovery,” the attorney said. Some claims might be not directly related from a legal standpoint.

“It all comes down to evidence,” he said. A attorney would need to prove causation, which would mean “but for the defendant’s conduct, the harm wouldn’t have happened”. In this case, that would translate to “absent the institution’s involvement, the victim maybe wouldn’t have been trafficked”, the lawyer explained.

A lawyer would also have to go further than 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 key contributor in causing the plaintiff harm.

“By engaging in a business relationship with Epstein, is that a substantial factor? I don’t know.”

Regardless of legal responsibility, such lawsuits could put institutions on notice that relationships with those accused of wrongdoing can have damaging implications for them.

“It represents a reputational disaster,” Rahmani noted. If the financial institutions try to get these cases dismissed and fail, the attorney anticipates 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 depend, in part, on what the banks knew, whether they had any knowledge of alleged abuse or illegal acts”, and somehow provided assistance to Epstein.

“But even then, I think it’s going to be hard to sort of loop the banks into some kind of sex-trafficking scheme. The banks would probably not be aware of the particulars of claims,” Faddis said. While Epstein’s Florida conviction was known, “there’s no law against for a financial institution to have a customer who’s an disreputable individual”.

“It is illegal for a bank to in any way be complicit in the illegal actions of a client, but those two issues are very different, and so I think that it’s going to be a tough lawsuit against the institutions.”

Possible Advantages for Survivors

That said, key elements of the legal proceedings could assist Epstein survivors.

“These cases may uncover additional details about the continuing Epstein story,” Faddis said. “Despite the fact that 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 formerly available.”

Attorney Brad Edwards said in a comment that the lawsuits could have a deterrent effect and accomplish what legislators have been unable to do.

“Legal actions are essential for full accountability for the victims of the financier – as well as for potential targets who will be harmed from comparable criminal networks – 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 offenses and putting an end to it.

He added: “We have a far better chance of making a real difference than Congress, because we know 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 survivors, who have already endured immense pain.

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

McCawley said in a declaration: “While legislators attempt to uncover how Jeffrey Epstein was able to orchestrate his illegal trafficking operation for decades without detection, we are taking a further significant action forward toward legal resolution for victims.”

Bank Responses

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

The bank’s response likewise stated: “We will vigorously defend ourselves in this case.”