🔗 Share this article

Over many years, survivors of Jeffrey Epstein have demanded accountability. For a while, it seemed like they would achieve it.

Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s ex-girlfriend, was convicted of sex trafficking in a 2021 trial for her role in the late financier’s sexual abuse of underage females – and given to two decades behind bars.

At the same time, banks that had done business with Epstein, although not admitting wrongdoing, paid substantial sums in settlements to survivors. Former President Trump even made releasing the Epstein investigative files part of his election promises, and reiterated on his commitment to do so in recent months.

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

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

Legal Actions Target Leading Financial Institutions

These lawsuits, filed by an unnamed accuser against a major U.S. bank and the Bank of New York Mellon (BNY), claim that these banking giants illicitly enabled Epstein’s trafficking ring. The cases are helmed by Sigrid S McCawley, of a prominent law firm, and Brad Edwards of Edwards Henderson, who have long represented Epstein victims.

“Epstein committed these crimes by means of not only his own vast fortune and power, but through financial backing and financial support from both individuals and institutions, including the bank,” the legal filing claims. “Egregiously, the institution 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 “knowingly provided the monetary resources and the appearance of respectability for Epstein and his accomplices to support their global trafficking enterprise under the pretext of non-criminal business activities”. The suit also said Bank of America failed to file mandatory financial alerts.

Legal Experts Offer Perspectives on Legal Hurdles

Longtime attorneys who spoke to the matter said proving such a case would be difficult. But they also identified possible outcomes which could offer comfort to plaintiffs or release of previously hidden details.

Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor 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 clearly I am on the side of the victims, and I want them to get answers and legal redress and financial recovery,” the attorney said. Certain allegations might be not directly related from a juridical perspective.

“It all comes down to evidence,” Rahmani said. A lawyer would need to prove causation, which would mean “if not for the bank’s actions, the harm wouldn’t have occurred”. In this instance, that would boil down to “absent the institution’s involvement, the survivor 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 standard. So any improper behavior there was, if there was any misconduct … the defendant’s misconduct has to have been a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff harm.

“Through maintaining financial ties to Epstein, is that a decisive element? I don’t know.”

Regardless of legal responsibility, suits like this could serve as a warning that associations with those involved in alleged crimes can have negative consequences for them.

“It’s a PR nightmare,” Rahmani noted. If the financial institutions try to get these cases thrown out and fail, the attorney anticipates a swift settlement. “No one wants to go litigate any of the Epstein-related cases.”

Eric Faddis, a trial attorney and principal of the legal practice Varner Faddis and former prosecutor, said companies can be liable. In this situation, “whether the banks have liability is going to hinge, in part, on what the banks knew, if they were informed of alleged abuse or illegal acts”, and somehow offered support to Epstein.

“However, even in that case, I think it’s going to be hard to sort of loop the financial entities into some kind of sex-trafficking scheme. The banks would probably not be privy to the details of allegations,” Faddis said. While Epstein’s Florida conviction was known, “there’s no law against for a financial institution to have a client who’s an disreputable individual”.

“It is illegal for a bank to in any way 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.”

Possible Advantages for Victims

That said, important aspects of the litigation could help Epstein survivors.

“The lawsuits have the potential to reveal more information about the continuing Epstein story,” Faddis said. “Even though there have been obstacles erected at every turn for individuals pursuing this information, when there’s a legal action, there’s a evidence-gathering phase, and that legal procedure often requires release of materials that was not previously public.”

Attorney Brad Edwards said in a statement that the suits could have a preventive impact and achieve what lawmakers have failed to do.

“Legal actions are essential for full accountability for the survivors of the financier – as well as for future would-be victims 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 criminal enterprise or recognizing the monetary aspect of these crimes and stopping it.

He added: “Our prospects are significantly higher of effecting meaningful change than Congress, because we understand the facts and background of the case and are not driven by partisan interests but rather by a sincere intention to make a real difference and to safeguard the victims, who have already suffered tremendously.

“We approach these matters without any political agenda and thus will not be swayed by obstructions, shielding influential figures, or the other embarrassing partisan gamesmanship you and the rest of the world have had to observe recently.”

Attorney Sigrid McCawley said in a statement: “As Congress works toward unraveling how the financier was able to orchestrate his criminal sex-trafficking enterprise for decades without being caught, we are taking a further significant action forward toward justice for survivors.”

Bank Responses

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 will vigorously defend ourselves in this matter.”