🔗 Share this article

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

Epstein’s former associate Ghislaine Maxwell, the financier’s one-time partner, was found guilty of sex trafficking in a 2021 trial for her role in the deceased billionaire’s sexual abuse of teen girls – and given to two decades behind bars.

Meanwhile, financial firms that had worked with Epstein, while not admitting wrongdoing, agreed to pay substantial sums in agreements to victims. Former President Trump even made releasing the Epstein investigative files part of his campaign platform, and doubled down on his promise to do so in recent months.

In the end, Trump’s justice department did not make public these files, and his government has become involved in allegations about social ties between him and Epstein. Congressional promises to release files have stalled, due to political jockeying and delays from federal authorities.

But recent legal actions could shed light on Epstein’s activities amid the stalemate – regardless of their outcome.

Lawsuits Aim at Major Banks

The legal complaints, submitted by an unnamed accuser against Bank of America and the BNY Mellon, claim that these financial powerhouses illicitly enabled Epstein’s trafficking ring. The suits are helmed by attorney Sigrid McCawley, of a prominent law firm, and lawyer Brad Edwards of Edwards Henderson, who have consistently advocated for survivors of Epstein’s abuse.

“Epstein committed these crimes by means of not only his own extraordinary wealth and power, but through financial backing and monetary assistance from both private parties and organizations, including BNY,” one lawsuit states. “Shockingly, the institution had a abundance of knowledge regarding Epstein’s sex trafficking operation but chose profit over protecting the victims.”

The Bank of America suit mirrors these claims, asserting the institution “knowingly provided the monetary resources and the appearance of respectability for Epstein and his accomplices to support their international sex trafficking organization under the guise of non-criminal business activities”. The suit also said the bank failed to file suspicious activity reports.

Legal Experts Weigh In on Case Challenges

Longtime attorneys who spoke to the situation said establishing liability would be challenging. But they also identified potential results which could offer comfort to accusers or release of previously hidden details.

Neama Rahmani, a ex-government lawyer who founded a legal firm, said evidence has to show that an institution’s actions resulted in harm.

“In my view, the case faces significant obstacles – and clearly I am on the side of the victims, and I want them to get explanations and criminal justice and compensation,” Rahmani said. Some claims might be too tangential from a legal standpoint.

“The case hinges on proof,” he said. A lawyer would need to prove cause and effect, which would mean “but for the defendant’s conduct, the injury wouldn’t have occurred”. In this case, that would boil down to “absent the institution’s involvement, the survivor maybe wouldn’t have been exploited”, Rahmani clarified.

A lawyer would also have to go beyond a basic causation test. “It’s not solely about indirect cause. It also has to be a substantial factor: 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 victim’s suffering.

“By engaging in a business relationship with Epstein, is that a decisive element? It’s uncertain.”

Regardless of legal responsibility, suits like this could put institutions on notice that relationships 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 dismissed and fail, the attorney expects a swift settlement. “No party desires to pursue any of the Epstein-related cases.”

Attorney Eric Faddis, a trial attorney and founder of the Colorado law firm his firm and ex-government lawyer, said companies can be responsible. In this scenario, “whether the banks have liability is going to hinge, in part, on their level of awareness, if they were informed of alleged abuse or criminal wrongdoing”, and in some way offered support to Epstein.

“However, even in that case, I think it’s going to be difficult to sort of loop the banks into some kind of sex-trafficking scheme. The institutions would likely not be aware of the particulars of allegations,” Faddis said. While Epstein’s Florida conviction was public, “there’s no law against for a financial institution to have a customer who’s an disreputable individual”.

“However, it is unlawful for a bank to in any way be involved 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 Victims

Nevertheless, important aspects of the litigation 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 individuals seeking this information, when there’s a lawsuit, there’s a discovery process, and that discovery process often mandates disclosure of materials that was not formerly available.”

Edwards said in a comment that the suits could have a deterrent effect and achieve what legislators have been unable to do.

“The lawsuits are necessary for complete justice 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 performs, either in providing the necessary infrastructure for the illegal operation or identifying the financial component of these offenses and stopping it.

Edwards continued: “We have a far better chance of making a real difference than lawmakers, because we understand the details and history of the matter and are not driven by politics but rather by a sincere intention to create substantial impact and to safeguard the survivors, who have already suffered tremendously.

“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 watch unfold recently.”

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

Institutional Reactions

Asked for comment on the legal complaint, BNY said: “The allegations in the case are baseless, and we will strongly contest against it.”

Bank of America’s statement likewise stated: “We will vigorously defend ourselves in this matter.”