🔗 Share this article

Over many years, victims of Jeffrey Epstein have sought justice. For a while, it seemed like they would get it.

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

Meanwhile, banks that had done business with Epstein, while not accepting fault, agreed to pay substantial sums in agreements to victims. Former President Trump even made releasing the documents related to the Epstein probe part of his election promises, and doubled down on his commitment to do so in recent months.

In the end, Trump’s justice department did not release these files, and his government 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 provide clarity on Epstein’s operations amid the stalemate – regardless of their outcome.

Lawsuits Target Leading Financial Institutions

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

“Epstein committed these crimes by means of not only his own vast fortune and power, but through financial backing and monetary assistance from both private parties and organizations, including the bank,” the legal filing claims. “Shockingly, BNY had a abundance of knowledge regarding Epstein’s sex trafficking operation but chose profit over protecting the victims.”

The Bank of America suit echoes these allegations, declaring the institution “deliberately supplied the financial support and the veneer of institutional legitimacy for Epstein and his accomplices to support their global trafficking enterprise under the pretext of legal commercial dealings”. The suit also said Bank of America failed to file suspicious activity reports.

Attorneys Offer Perspectives on Legal Hurdles

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

Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor who established West Coast Trial lawyers, said evidence has to show that an institution’s actions led to harm.

“In my view, the case faces significant obstacles – and obviously I am on the side of the survivors, and I want them to get explanations and criminal justice and financial recovery,” Rahmani said. Some claims might be not directly related from a legal standpoint.

“The case hinges on proof,” he 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 case, that would translate to “but for the bank’s conduct, the victim maybe wouldn’t have been trafficked”, the lawyer clarified.

An attorney would also have to go beyond a “but for” measure. “It’s not solely about indirect cause. It also has to be a substantial factor: that is the legal test. So whatever misconduct there was, if there was any misconduct … 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 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’s a PR nightmare,” Rahmani noted. If the financial institutions try to get these suits thrown out and fail, the attorney anticipates a swift settlement. “No one wants to go litigate any of the legal matters tied to Epstein.”

Eric Faddis, a trial attorney and principal of the Colorado law firm Varner Faddis and ex-government lawyer, said companies can be liable. In this situation, “if the institutions bear fault is going to hinge, in part, on their level of awareness, whether they had any knowledge of claimed misconduct or criminal wrongdoing”, and in some way provided assistance to Epstein.

“But even then, I think it’s going to be hard to sort of loop the financial entities into some kind of trafficking operation. The institutions would probably not be privy to the details of allegations,” Faddis said. While the financier’s prior legal case was public, “it’s not illegal for a bank to have a client who’s an disreputable individual”.

“However, it is unlawful for a financial firm to in any way be involved in the criminal activity of a customer, but these aspects are distinct, and so I think that it’s going to be a difficult case against the institutions.”

Potential Benefits for Victims

Nevertheless, key elements 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 obstacles erected at every turn for individuals pursuing this information, when there’s a lawsuit, there’s a discovery process, and that legal procedure often mandates disclosure of information that was not previously public.”

Edwards said in a statement that the suits could have a deterrent effect and accomplish what lawmakers have failed to do.

“Legal actions are essential for full accountability for the victims of Jeffrey Epstein – as well as for potential targets who will be harmed from similar trafficking organizations – if our banks are not made responsible for the crucial part each performs, either in supplying the required framework for the criminal enterprise or recognizing the financial component of these offenses and stopping it.

He added: “Our prospects are significantly higher of making a real difference than lawmakers, because we know the facts and history of the case and are not driven by partisan interests but rather by a genuine desire to make a real difference and to protect the survivors, who have already suffered tremendously.

“Our handling of these issues without any partisan motives and thus cannot be deterred by shutdowns, protecting wealthy politically connected individuals, 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: “As Congress works toward unraveling how the financier was able to orchestrate his illegal trafficking operation for decades without being caught, we are taking another important step forward toward justice for survivors.”

Bank Responses

Asked for comment on the legal complaint, the Bank of New York Mellon said: “The claims in the lawsuit are meritless, and we will vigorously defend against it.”

The bank’s response likewise stated: “We will vigorously defend ourselves in this case.”