🔗 Share this article

For years, victims of Jeffrey Epstein have demanded accountability. For a while, it appeared like they would get it.

Epstein’s former associate Ghislaine Maxwell, the financier’s one-time partner, was convicted of human trafficking four years ago for her role in the late financier’s sexual abuse of teen girls – and given to two decades behind bars.

At the same time, banks that had done business with Epstein, while not admitting wrongdoing, agreed to pay hundreds of millions in settlements to victims. Donald Trump even made releasing the documents related to the Epstein probe part of his campaign platform, and doubled down on his commitment to do so early this year.

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

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

Lawsuits Target Leading Financial Institutions

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 led 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.

“The financier carried out these offenses by means of not only his own extraordinary wealth and influence, but through financial backing and monetary assistance 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 opted for financial gain over safeguarding those harmed.”

The complaint against Bank of America mirrors these claims, declaring the institution “deliberately supplied the monetary resources and the veneer of institutional legitimacy for Epstein and his co-conspirators to fuel their global trafficking enterprise under the pretext of non-criminal business activities”. The suit also said the bank neglected to file mandatory financial alerts.

Attorneys Offer Perspectives on Legal Hurdles

Experienced lawyers who commented on the situation said establishing liability would be challenging. But they also noted potential results which could offer comfort to plaintiffs or release of previously hidden details.

Attorney Neama Rahmani, a ex-government lawyer who established 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 answers and legal redress and financial recovery,” the attorney said. Some claims might be too tangential from a juridical perspective.

“It all comes down to evidence,” he 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 occurred”. In this case, that would translate to “but for the bank’s conduct, the victim maybe wouldn’t have been trafficked”, Rahmani clarified.

A lawyer would also have to go further than a basic causation test. “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 bank’s actions has to have been a substantial factor in causing the victim’s suffering.

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

Regardless of legal responsibility, such lawsuits could serve as a warning 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 suits 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 his firm and former prosecutor, said companies 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 trafficking operation. The institutions would likely not be aware of the particulars of allegations,” the lawyer said. While Epstein’s Florida conviction was public, “it’s not illegal for a bank to have a customer who’s an unsavory person”.

“It is illegal for a financial firm to in any way be involved in the illegal actions of a customer, but those two issues are very different, and so I think that it’s going to be a difficult case against the institutions.”

Potential Benefits for Victims

That said, important aspects of the legal proceedings could assist Epstein survivors.

“These cases may uncover additional details about the ongoing Epstein saga,” the attorney said. “Despite the fact that there have been sort of walls put up at every turn for folks seeking this data, when there’s a lawsuit, there’s a discovery process, and that legal procedure often requires release of information 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.

“The lawsuits are necessary for complete justice for the victims of Jeffrey Epstein – as well as for future would-be victims who will be harmed from similar trafficking organizations – if our banks are not held accountable for the essential role each plays, either in providing the required framework for the illegal operation or identifying the financial component of these crimes and stopping it.

He added: “Our prospects are significantly higher of making a real difference than Congress, because we understand the facts and background of the case and are not driven by politics but rather by a genuine desire to make a real difference and to safeguard the survivors, who have already suffered tremendously.

“Our handling of these issues without any political agenda and thus will not be swayed 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.”

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

Institutional Reactions

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

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