🔗 Share this article

Over many years, victims of Jeffrey Epstein have demanded justice. At one point, it appeared 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 sexual abuse of underage females – and sentenced to two decades behind bars.

At the same time, financial firms that had worked with Epstein, although not admitting wrongdoing, paid substantial sums in agreements to survivors. Former President Trump even made releasing the Epstein investigative files part of his election promises, and doubled down on his commitment to do so early this year.

Ultimately, the administration’s Department of Justice did not release these records, and his administration has become involved in reports about social ties between him and Epstein. Assurances from lawmakers to disclose documents have lagged, due to partisan maneuvering and justice department foot-dragging.

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

Legal Actions 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), allege that these banking giants illicitly enabled Epstein’s trafficking ring. The cases are helmed by Sigrid S McCawley, of a prominent law firm, and lawyer Brad Edwards of his legal practice, who have long represented survivors of Epstein’s abuse.

“The financier carried out these offenses by means of not only his own vast fortune and power, but through financial backing and monetary assistance from both individuals and institutions, including BNY,” one lawsuit claims. “Shockingly, BNY had a plethora of information regarding Epstein’s trafficking network but chose profit over safeguarding those harmed.”

The Bank of America suit echoes these allegations, declaring the institution “knowingly provided the financial support and the veneer of institutional legitimacy for Epstein and his co-conspirators to fuel 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.

Attorneys Offer Perspectives on Case Challenges

Longtime attorneys who commented on the situation said proving such a case would be difficult. But they also noted potential results which could provide solace to plaintiffs or release of previously hidden details.

Attorney Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor who founded a legal firm, said proof has to show that an institution’s actions 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 criminal justice and compensation,” the attorney said. Certain allegations might be too tangential from a juridical perspective.

“The case hinges on proof,” he said. A attorney would need to prove causation, which would mean “but for the defendant’s conduct, the harm wouldn’t have occurred”. In this case, that would boil down to “but for the bank’s conduct, the victim maybe wouldn’t have been exploited”, Rahmani clarified.

An attorney would also have to go further than a “but for” measure. “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 wrongdoing … the defendant’s misconduct has to have been a key contributor in leading to the plaintiff harm.

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

Liability aside, suits like this could serve as a warning 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 suits thrown out and fail, Rahmani anticipates a swift settlement. “No one wants to go litigate any of the Epstein-related cases.”

Attorney Eric Faddis, a litigator and founder of the Colorado law firm his firm and ex-government lawyer, said corporations can be liable. In this situation, “whether the banks have liability is going to depend, in part, on their level of awareness, if they were informed of alleged abuse or criminal wrongdoing”, and in some way provided assistance to Epstein.

“But even then, I think it’s going to be difficult to effectively connect the financial entities into some kind of trafficking operation. The banks would probably not be aware of the details of claims,” Faddis said. While the financier’s prior legal case was known, “there’s no law against for a bank to have a customer who’s an unsavory person”.

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

Possible Advantages for Survivors

That said, key elements of the litigation could assist those affected by Epstein.

“The lawsuits have the potential to reveal more information about the continuing Epstein story,” Faddis 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 legal action, there’s a evidence-gathering phase, and that discovery process often requires release of materials that was not previously public.”

Attorney Brad Edwards said in a statement 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 future would-be victims who will suffer from similar trafficking organizations – if our financial institutions are not made responsible for the crucial part each performs, either in providing the required framework for the illegal operation or identifying the financial component of these offenses and putting an end to it.

He added: “We have a far better chance of effecting meaningful change than lawmakers, because we know the details and background of the matter and are not driven by politics but rather by a sincere intention to create substantial impact and to safeguard the victims, who have already endured immense pain.

“We approach these matters without any partisan motives 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 statement: “While legislators attempt to uncover how Jeffrey Epstein was able to conduct his criminal sex-trafficking enterprise for decades without being caught, we are taking another important step forward toward justice for survivors.”

Institutional Reactions

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

Bank of America’s statement similarly remarked: “We intend to firmly protect our interests in this case.”