🔗 Share this article

For years, victims of the late financier Jeffrey Epstein have demanded justice. For a while, it seemed like they would get it.

Epstein’s former associate Ghislaine Maxwell, the financier’s one-time partner, was convicted of human trafficking in a 2021 trial for her involvement in the late financier’s exploitation of underage females – and given to 20 years imprisonment.

Meanwhile, financial firms that had done business with Epstein, although not accepting fault, paid 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 doubled down 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 embroiled in reports about personal connections between him and Epstein. Congressional promises to release files have stalled, due to partisan maneuvering and justice department foot-dragging.

However two new lawsuits could provide clarity on Epstein’s activities amid the deadlock – irrespective of their outcome.

Lawsuits Aim at Major Banks

These lawsuits, submitted 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 suits are helmed by attorney Sigrid McCawley, of a prominent law firm, and lawyer 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 extraordinary wealth and influence, but through access to funding and financial support from both private parties and institutions, 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, asserting the institution “deliberately supplied the financial support and the veneer of institutional legitimacy for Epstein and his co-conspirators to fuel their global trafficking enterprise under the pretext of legal commercial dealings”. The suit also said Bank of America failed to file mandatory financial alerts.

Legal Experts Offer Perspectives on Legal Hurdles

Longtime attorneys who commented on the situation said establishing liability would be challenging. But they also identified possible outcomes which could provide solace to accusers or disclosure of previously hidden details.

Neama Rahmani, a ex-government lawyer who established a legal firm, said proof has to show that an bank’s conduct resulted in harm.

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

“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 injury wouldn’t have occurred”. In this instance, that would boil down to “but for the bank’s conduct, the survivor maybe wouldn’t have been trafficked”, the lawyer clarified.

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 legal test. So whatever misconduct there was, if there was any misconduct … the bank’s actions has to have been a key contributor in causing the plaintiff harm.

“Through maintaining financial ties to Epstein, is that a decisive element? 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 banks try to get these cases thrown out and fail, Rahmani expects a swift settlement. “No party desires to pursue any of the Epstein-related cases.”

Eric Faddis, a trial attorney and founder of the legal practice Varner Faddis and former prosecutor, said corporations can be liable. In this scenario, “if the institutions bear fault is going to hinge, in part, on their level of awareness, if they were informed of claimed misconduct or illegal acts”, and somehow offered support 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 institutions would likely not be privy to the details of allegations,” the lawyer said. While Epstein’s Florida conviction was known, “it’s not illegal for a bank to have a customer who’s an disreputable individual”.

“It is illegal for a financial firm to in any way be complicit in the illegal actions of a client, but these aspects are distinct, and so I think that it’s going to be a tough lawsuit against the institutions.”

Potential Benefits for Survivors

That said, key elements of the litigation could help Epstein survivors.

“These cases may uncover additional details about the continuing Epstein story,” Faddis said. “Even though there have been sort of walls put up at every turn for folks pursuing this information, when there’s a legal action, there’s a discovery process, and that discovery process often mandates disclosure of materials that was not formerly available.”

Attorney Brad Edwards said in a statement that the suits 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 Jeffrey Epstein – as well as for potential targets who will suffer from similar trafficking organizations – if our banks are not made responsible for the essential role each plays, either in providing the necessary infrastructure for the illegal operation or recognizing the monetary aspect of these crimes and stopping it.

Edwards continued: “We have a far better chance of making a real difference than lawmakers, because we understand the facts and history of the case and are not motivated by partisan interests but rather by a genuine desire to create substantial impact and to protect the survivors, who have already endured immense pain.

“We approach these matters without any political agenda and thus cannot be deterred by shutdowns, shielding influential figures, or the other shameful political maneuvering you and the rest of the world have had to watch unfold recently.”

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

Bank Responses

When requested for a statement on the legal complaint, BNY said: “The claims in the lawsuit are meritless, and we will vigorously defend against it.”

Bank of America’s statement likewise stated: “We intend to firmly protect our interests in this matter.”