🔗 Share this article

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

Epstein’s former associate Ghislaine Maxwell, the financier’s one-time partner, was found guilty of sex trafficking in a 2021 trial for her role in the deceased billionaire’s exploitation of underage females – and sentenced to two decades behind bars.

Meanwhile, banks that had done business with Epstein, while not admitting wrongdoing, agreed to pay hundreds of millions in settlements to survivors. Donald Trump even made releasing the Epstein investigative files part of his election promises, and reiterated on his commitment to do so early this year.

Ultimately, Trump’s justice department did not make public these files, and his government has become involved in allegations about personal connections between him and Epstein. Congressional promises to release files have stalled, due to political jockeying and justice department foot-dragging.

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

Lawsuits Target Leading Financial Institutions

These lawsuits, submitted by an unnamed accuser against Bank of America and the BNY Mellon, claim that these banking giants unlawfully facilitated Epstein’s sex trafficking. The cases are led by attorney Sigrid McCawley, of a prominent law firm, and Brad Edwards of his legal practice, who have consistently advocated for survivors of Epstein’s abuse.

“Epstein committed these crimes by means of not only his own extraordinary wealth and influence, but through financial backing and monetary assistance from both private parties and organizations, including the bank,” the legal filing states. “Egregiously, BNY had a abundance of knowledge regarding Epstein’s trafficking network but chose profit over safeguarding those harmed.”

The complaint against Bank of America echoes these allegations, declaring the institution “knowingly provided the financial support and the appearance of respectability for Epstein and his accomplices to support their global trafficking enterprise under the guise of legal commercial dealings”. The legal action also said Bank of America failed to file suspicious activity reports.

Legal Experts Offer Perspectives on Case Challenges

Longtime attorneys who commented on the situation said establishing liability would be challenging. But they also identified potential results which could offer comfort to accusers or release of long-sought information.

Neama Rahmani, a ex-government lawyer who founded West Coast Trial lawyers, said proof has to show that an institution’s actions led to harm.

“In my view, the case faces significant obstacles – and clearly I am on the side of the victims, and I want them to get answers and criminal justice and financial recovery,” the attorney said. Certain allegations might be not directly related from a juridical perspective.

“It all comes down to evidence,” he said. A attorney would need to prove cause and effect, which would mean “if not for the bank’s actions, the injury wouldn’t have happened”. In this case, that would translate to “absent the institution’s involvement, 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 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 substantial factor? It’s uncertain.”

Liability aside, suits like this could put institutions on notice that associations with those accused of wrongdoing can have damaging implications for them.

“It represents a reputational disaster,” Rahmani noted. If the financial institutions try to get these cases dismissed and fail, the attorney expects a swift settlement. “No one wants to go litigate any of the legal matters tied to Epstein.”

Eric Faddis, a trial attorney and founder of the Colorado law firm his firm and ex-government lawyer, said corporations can be liable. In this scenario, “whether the banks have liability is going to depend, in part, on their level of awareness, if they were informed of alleged abuse or illegal acts”, and somehow provided assistance to Epstein.

“However, even in that case, I think it’s going to be difficult to effectively connect the banks into some kind of trafficking operation. The institutions would probably not be aware of the particulars of claims,” Faddis said. While the financier’s prior legal case was public, “it’s not illegal for a financial institution 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 institutions.”

Potential Benefits for Survivors

Nevertheless, important aspects 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 legal action, 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 achieve what legislators have been unable to do.

“Legal actions are essential for full accountability for the victims of the financier – as well as for potential targets who will suffer from comparable criminal networks – if our banks are not held accountable for the crucial part each performs, either in providing the required framework for the criminal enterprise or recognizing the monetary aspect of these offenses and stopping it.

Edwards continued: “We have a far better chance of effecting meaningful change than Congress, because we understand the facts and history of the matter and are not driven by politics but rather by a sincere intention to create substantial impact and to protect the victims, who have already endured immense pain.

“We approach these matters without any partisan motives and thus will not be swayed by obstructions, 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 statement: “As Congress works toward unraveling how Jeffrey Epstein was able to conduct 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 intend to firmly protect our interests in this matter.”