🔗 Share this article

For years, victims of the late financier Jeffrey Epstein have sought justice. At one point, it appeared like they would get it.

Epstein’s former associate Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s ex-girlfriend, was convicted of sex trafficking in a 2021 trial for her role in the late financier’s exploitation of underage females – and given to 20 years imprisonment.

At the same time, financial firms that had worked with Epstein, while not admitting wrongdoing, paid substantial sums in settlements to victims. Former President 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 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 stalled, due to political jockeying and delays from federal authorities.

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

Lawsuits Aim at Major Banks

The legal complaints, submitted by an anonymous plaintiff against Bank of America and the BNY Mellon, allege that these financial powerhouses unlawfully facilitated Epstein’s trafficking ring. The suits are helmed by Sigrid S McCawley, of a prominent law firm, and Brad Edwards of his legal practice, who have long represented Epstein victims.

“Epstein committed these crimes by means of not only his own vast fortune and power, but through access to funding and financial support from both private parties and organizations, including BNY,” one lawsuit states. “Shockingly, the institution had a abundance of knowledge regarding Epstein’s sex trafficking operation but opted for financial gain over safeguarding those harmed.”

The complaint against Bank of America echoes these allegations, declaring the institution “knowingly provided the financial support and the veneer of institutional legitimacy for Epstein and his accomplices to support their international sex trafficking organization under the guise of non-criminal business activities”. The legal action also said Bank of America failed to file mandatory financial alerts.

Attorneys Offer Perspectives on Legal Hurdles

Experienced lawyers who spoke to the situation said proving such a case would be challenging. But they also noted possible outcomes which could offer comfort to plaintiffs or disclosure of previously hidden details.

Attorney Neama Rahmani, a ex-government lawyer who established 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 victims, and I want them to get answers and criminal justice and compensation,” the attorney said. Certain allegations might be not directly related from a legal standpoint.

“The case hinges on proof,” 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 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 further than a “but for” measure. “Is not just ‘but for’ causation. 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 causing the plaintiff harm.

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

Regardless of legal responsibility, such lawsuits could serve as a warning that associations with those accused of wrongdoing can have damaging implications for them.

“It’s a PR nightmare,” he said. If the banks try to get these suits dismissed and are unsuccessful, Rahmani anticipates a quick resolution. “No one wants to go litigate any of the legal matters tied to Epstein.”

Attorney Eric Faddis, a litigator and founder of the legal practice Varner Faddis and former prosecutor, 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 alleged abuse or criminal wrongdoing”, and somehow offered support to Epstein.

“But even then, I think it’s going to be difficult to sort of loop the financial entities into some kind of sex-trafficking scheme. The institutions would probably not be aware of the details of allegations,” Faddis said. While Epstein’s Florida conviction was known, “it’s not illegal for a bank to have a customer who’s an disreputable individual”.

“However, it is unlawful for a financial firm to in any way be complicit in the criminal activity of a client, but those two issues are distinct, and so I think that it’s going to be a tough lawsuit against the banks.”

Potential Benefits for Survivors

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

“The lawsuits have the potential to reveal more information about the ongoing Epstein saga,” the attorney 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 discovery process, and that legal procedure often mandates release of materials that was not previously public.”

Attorney Brad Edwards said in a statement that the lawsuits could have a preventive impact and accomplish what legislators have been unable to do.

“Legal actions are essential for full accountability 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 essential role each performs, either in supplying the necessary infrastructure for the illegal operation or recognizing the monetary aspect of these crimes and stopping it.

He added: “We have a far better chance of effecting meaningful change than Congress, because we understand the facts and background of the matter and are not motivated by partisan interests but rather by a genuine desire to create substantial impact and to protect the survivors, 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 shameful political maneuvering 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 illegal trafficking operation for many years without detection, we are taking another important step forward toward justice for victims.”

Bank Responses

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

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