🔗 Share this article

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

Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s ex-girlfriend, 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 20 years imprisonment.

Meanwhile, financial firms that had worked with Epstein, although not accepting fault, agreed to pay hundreds of millions in agreements to survivors. Donald Trump even made releasing the documents related to the Epstein probe part of his election promises, and reiterated on his commitment to do so in recent months.

Ultimately, the administration’s Department of Justice did not release these files, and his administration has become involved in reports about social ties between him and Epstein. Congressional promises to release files have stalled, due to partisan maneuvering and justice department foot-dragging.

But two new lawsuits could shed light on Epstein’s activities amid the deadlock – irrespective of their result.

Legal Actions Target Major Banks

These lawsuits, submitted by an anonymous plaintiff against a major U.S. bank and the BNY Mellon, 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 consistently advocated for survivors of Epstein’s abuse.

“The financier carried out these offenses by means of not only his own extraordinary wealth and influence, but through access to funding and financial support from both private parties and organizations, including the bank,” the legal filing states. “Egregiously, the institution had a abundance of knowledge regarding Epstein’s trafficking network but chose profit over safeguarding those harmed.”

The Bank of America suit mirrors these claims, declaring the institution “knowingly provided the financial support and the appearance of respectability for Epstein and his accomplices to fuel their global trafficking enterprise under the guise of legal commercial dealings”. The legal action also said the bank neglected to file suspicious activity reports.

Attorneys Weigh In on Case Challenges

Longtime attorneys who commented on the situation said establishing liability would be challenging. But they also noted potential results which could provide solace to plaintiffs or disclosure of previously hidden details.

Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor who established West Coast Trial lawyers, said evidence has to show that an bank’s conduct resulted in harm.

“In my view, the case faces significant obstacles – and obviously I am on the side of the victims, and I want them to get answers and legal redress 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 cause and effect, which would mean “if not for the bank’s actions, the harm wouldn’t have happened”. In this instance, that would boil down to “but for the bank’s conduct, the victim maybe wouldn’t have been trafficked”, Rahmani explained.

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 legal test. 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.

“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 accused of wrongdoing can have negative consequences for them.

“It’s a PR nightmare,” Rahmani noted. If the financial institutions try to get these suits thrown out and fail, Rahmani expects a swift settlement. “No one wants to go litigate any of the legal matters tied to Epstein.”

Eric Faddis, a litigator and founder of the legal practice his firm and former prosecutor, said corporations can be responsible. In this situation, “whether the banks have liability is going to depend, in part, on their level of awareness, whether they had any knowledge of alleged abuse or criminal wrongdoing”, and in some way offered support to Epstein.

“But even then, 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 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 bank to in any way be involved in the criminal activity of a customer, but these aspects are very different, and so I think that it’s going to be a difficult case against the institutions.”

Potential Benefits for Victims

That said, key elements of the legal proceedings could help those affected by Epstein.

“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 folks pursuing this information, when there’s a legal action, there’s a discovery process, and that legal procedure often mandates disclosure of information that was not previously public.”

Attorney Brad Edwards said in a statement that the lawsuits could have a deterrent effect and accomplish what legislators have failed to do.

“The lawsuits are necessary for complete justice for the victims of the financier – as well as for potential targets who will be harmed from comparable criminal networks – if our financial institutions are not held accountable for the crucial part each performs, either in providing the necessary infrastructure for the illegal operation or identifying the financial component of these offenses and stopping it.

He added: “We have a far better chance of making a real difference than lawmakers, because we understand the details and background of the matter and are not motivated by politics but rather by a sincere intention to make a real difference and to safeguard the victims, who have already endured immense pain.

“Our handling of these issues without any partisan motives and thus cannot be deterred by shutdowns, protecting wealthy politically connected individuals, or the other embarrassing partisan gamesmanship you and the rest of the world have had to observe recently.”

McCawley said in a declaration: “While legislators attempt to uncover how Jeffrey Epstein was able to orchestrate his criminal sex-trafficking enterprise for decades without being caught, we are taking a further significant action forward toward legal resolution for survivors.”

Institutional Reactions

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.”

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