🔗 Share this article

Over many years, victims of the late financier Jeffrey Epstein have demanded justice. For a while, it appeared like they would achieve it.

Ghislaine Maxwell, the financier’s one-time partner, was found guilty of sex trafficking four years ago for her involvement in the deceased billionaire’s sexual abuse of teen girls – and given to 20 years imprisonment.

Meanwhile, banks that had worked with Epstein, although not admitting wrongdoing, paid substantial sums in settlements to survivors. Former President Trump even made releasing the documents related to the Epstein probe part of his campaign platform, and reiterated on his commitment 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 personal connections between him and Epstein. Assurances from lawmakers to release files have lagged, due to political jockeying and justice department foot-dragging.

However two new lawsuits could shed light on Epstein’s operations amid the stalemate – irrespective of their result.

Legal Actions Target Leading Financial Institutions

The legal complaints, submitted by an anonymous plaintiff against a major U.S. bank and the BNY Mellon, allege that these financial powerhouses illicitly enabled Epstein’s trafficking ring. The cases are led by Sigrid S McCawley, of Boies Schiller Flexner, and lawyer Brad Edwards of Edwards Henderson, who have long represented Epstein victims.

“The financier carried out these offenses by means of not only his own vast fortune and power, but through access to funding and monetary assistance from both individuals and organizations, including the bank,” one lawsuit claims. “Egregiously, the institution had a plethora of information regarding Epstein’s trafficking network but chose profit over safeguarding those harmed.”

The complaint against Bank of America mirrors these claims, asserting the institution “deliberately supplied the financial support and the appearance of respectability for Epstein and his co-conspirators to support their global trafficking enterprise under the guise of legal commercial dealings”. The legal action also said Bank of America failed to file mandatory financial alerts.

Legal Experts Weigh In on Legal Hurdles

Experienced lawyers who commented on the situation said proving such a case would be difficult. But they also noted potential results which could provide solace to accusers or disclosure of long-sought information.

Attorney Neama Rahmani, a ex-government lawyer who founded a legal firm, said evidence 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 clearly I am on the side of the survivors, and I want them to get answers and criminal justice and financial recovery,” the attorney said. Some claims might be too tangential from a legal standpoint.

“It all comes down to evidence,” Rahmani said. A attorney would need to prove causation, which would mean “but for the defendant’s conduct, the injury wouldn’t have happened”. In this case, that would boil down to “but for the bank’s conduct, the victim maybe wouldn’t have been trafficked”, Rahmani clarified.

An attorney would also have to go beyond a basic causation test. “It’s not solely about indirect cause. It also has to be a significant element: that is the standard. So whatever misconduct there was, if there was any wrongdoing … the defendant’s misconduct has to have been a substantial factor in leading to the victim’s suffering.

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

Regardless of legal responsibility, suits like this could put institutions on notice that relationships with those involved in alleged crimes can have negative consequences for them.

“It’s a PR nightmare,” he said. If the financial institutions try to get these suits dismissed and are unsuccessful, Rahmani expects a swift settlement. “No party desires to pursue any of the legal matters tied to Epstein.”

Eric Faddis, a trial attorney and principal of the Colorado law firm his firm and former prosecutor, said corporations can be responsible. In this situation, “whether the banks have liability is going to hinge, in part, on their level of awareness, whether they had any knowledge of alleged abuse or criminal wrongdoing”, and somehow offered support to Epstein.

“However, even in that case, I think it’s going to be difficult to effectively connect the financial entities into some kind of trafficking operation. The institutions would likely not be aware of the particulars of claims,” Faddis said. While the financier’s prior legal case was known, “it’s not illegal for a bank to have a customer who’s an unsavory person”.

“However, it is unlawful for a bank to somehow be involved in the criminal activity 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 banks.”

Possible Advantages for Victims

That said, important aspects of the legal proceedings could help those affected by Epstein.

“The lawsuits have the potential to reveal more information about the continuing Epstein story,” the attorney said. “Despite the fact that there have been obstacles erected at every turn for individuals pursuing this data, when there’s a lawsuit, there’s a evidence-gathering phase, and that discovery process often mandates disclosure of materials that was not previously public.”

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

“Legal actions are essential for full accountability 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 held accountable for the crucial part each plays, either in providing the required framework for the criminal enterprise or identifying the financial component of these crimes and stopping it.

Edwards continued: “Our prospects are significantly higher of effecting meaningful change than Congress, because we understand the details and background of the case and are not driven by politics but rather by a sincere intention 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 cannot be deterred by obstructions, shielding influential figures, or the other shameful political maneuvering you and the rest of the world have had to watch unfold recently.”

Attorney Sigrid McCawley said in a declaration: “As Congress works toward unraveling how the financier was able to conduct his illegal trafficking operation for many years without being caught, we are taking another important step forward toward legal resolution for victims.”

Institutional Reactions

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

The bank’s response similarly remarked: “We intend to firmly protect our interests in this matter.”