🔗 Share this article

Over many years, survivors of the late financier Jeffrey Epstein have sought justice. For a while, it seemed like they would achieve it.

Epstein’s former associate Ghislaine Maxwell, the financier’s one-time partner, was found guilty of human trafficking four years ago for her role in the late financier’s sexual abuse of underage females – and sentenced to 20 years imprisonment.

At the same time, financial firms that had worked with Epstein, while not accepting fault, paid substantial sums in settlements to victims. Former President Trump even made releasing the documents related to the Epstein probe part of his election promises, and doubled down on his commitment to do so in recent months.

Ultimately, the administration’s Department of Justice did not make public these files, and his government has become embroiled in reports about personal connections between him and Epstein. Assurances from lawmakers to release files have lagged, due to political jockeying and delays from federal authorities.

But two new lawsuits could shed light on Epstein’s operations amid the deadlock – irrespective of their outcome.

Legal Actions Target Major Banks

The legal complaints, filed by an unnamed accuser against Bank of America and the BNY Mellon, claim that these financial powerhouses illicitly enabled Epstein’s trafficking ring. The cases are helmed by Sigrid S McCawley, of Boies Schiller Flexner, and lawyer Brad Edwards of his legal practice, who have long represented survivors of Epstein’s abuse.

“The financier carried out these offenses by means of not only his own extraordinary wealth and power, but through financial backing and financial support from both individuals and organizations, including the bank,” one lawsuit states. “Shockingly, BNY 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, asserting the institution “knowingly provided the monetary resources and the appearance of respectability for Epstein and his co-conspirators to support their international sex trafficking organization under the pretext of non-criminal business activities”. The suit also said the bank neglected to file suspicious activity reports.

Legal Experts Weigh In on Case Challenges

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

Attorney Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor who founded a legal firm, said proof 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 explanations and criminal justice and compensation,” Rahmani said. Some claims might be not directly related from a juridical perspective.

“It all comes down to evidence,” Rahmani said. A lawyer would need to prove cause and effect, 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 exploited”, Rahmani clarified.

An attorney would also have to go beyond a “but for” measure. “It’s not solely about indirect cause. It also has to be a significant element: that is the legal test. So any improper behavior there was, if there was any wrongdoing … the defendant’s misconduct has to have been a key contributor in leading to the plaintiff harm.

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

Liability aside, suits like this could put institutions on notice that associations with those involved in alleged crimes can have damaging implications for them.

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

Attorney Eric Faddis, a litigator and principal of the legal practice his firm and former prosecutor, said companies can be responsible. In this scenario, “whether the banks have liability is going to hinge, in part, on what the banks knew, if they were informed of claimed misconduct or criminal wrongdoing”, and in some way offered support 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 banks would probably not be aware of the details of allegations,” Faddis said. While Epstein’s Florida conviction was public, “it’s not illegal for a bank to have a client who’s an disreputable individual”.

“It is illegal for a bank to somehow be complicit 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.”

Potential Benefits for Survivors

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

“These cases may uncover additional details about the continuing Epstein story,” the attorney said. “Even though there have been sort of walls put up at every turn for folks 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.”

Edwards said in a comment that the suits could have a deterrent effect and accomplish what lawmakers have failed to do.

“The lawsuits are necessary for complete justice for the survivors of the financier – as well as for potential targets who will be harmed from similar trafficking organizations – if our financial institutions are not made responsible for the essential role each performs, either in supplying the required framework for the illegal operation or identifying the financial component of these offenses and stopping it.

Edwards continued: “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 politics but rather by a sincere intention to make a real difference and to protect the survivors, who have already suffered tremendously.

“Our handling of these issues without any partisan motives and thus will not be swayed by obstructions, shielding influential figures, or the other shameful political maneuvering you and the rest of the world have had to observe recently.”

McCawley said in a statement: “While legislators attempt to uncover how Jeffrey Epstein was able to orchestrate his criminal sex-trafficking enterprise for many years without detection, we are taking another important step forward toward justice for survivors.”

Bank Responses

When requested for a statement on the lawsuit, the Bank of New York Mellon said: “The claims in the lawsuit are meritless, and we will vigorously defend against it.”

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