🔗 Share this article

Over many years, survivors of the late financier Jeffrey Epstein have sought justice. For a while, it seemed like they would achieve it.

Epstein’s former associate Ghislaine Maxwell, the financier’s one-time partner, was found guilty of human trafficking four years ago for her involvement in the late financier’s sexual abuse of underage females – and sentenced to two decades behind bars.

At the same time, banks that had worked with Epstein, while not admitting wrongdoing, agreed to pay hundreds of millions in settlements to victims. Former President Trump even made disclosing the Epstein investigative files part of his campaign platform, and doubled down on his promise to do so in recent months.

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

However recent legal actions could shed light on Epstein’s operations amid the stalemate – irrespective of their result.

Lawsuits Aim at Major Banks

These lawsuits, submitted by an unnamed accuser against Bank of America and the BNY Mellon, claim that these financial powerhouses illicitly enabled Epstein’s sex trafficking. The suits are helmed by attorney Sigrid McCawley, of a prominent law firm, and lawyer Brad Edwards of Edwards Henderson, who have consistently advocated for survivors of Epstein’s abuse.

“Epstein committed these crimes by means of not only his own vast fortune and power, but through access to funding and monetary assistance from both individuals and institutions, including BNY,” one lawsuit states. “Egregiously, the institution had a abundance of knowledge regarding Epstein’s sex trafficking operation but opted for financial gain over protecting the victims.”

The Bank of America suit mirrors these claims, declaring the institution “deliberately supplied the monetary resources and the veneer of institutional legitimacy for Epstein and his accomplices to fuel their global trafficking enterprise under the guise of legal commercial dealings”. The suit also said Bank of America neglected to file suspicious activity reports.

Attorneys Weigh In on Legal Hurdles

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

Neama Rahmani, a ex-government lawyer who founded West Coast Trial lawyers, said evidence 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 obviously I am on the side of the survivors, and I want them to get answers and criminal justice and compensation,” the attorney said. Certain allegations might be not directly related from a juridical perspective.

“It all comes down to evidence,” Rahmani said. A lawyer would need to prove cause and effect, which would mean “but for the defendant’s conduct, the injury wouldn’t have happened”. In this case, that would translate to “but for the bank’s conduct, the victim maybe wouldn’t have been exploited”, Rahmani explained.

An attorney would also have to go beyond a basic causation test. “Is not just ‘but for’ causation. It also has to be a significant element: that is the standard. 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 substantial factor? I don’t know.”

Liability aside, suits like this could serve as a warning that associations with those involved in alleged crimes 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 party desires to pursue any of the legal matters tied to Epstein.”

Attorney Eric Faddis, a trial attorney and principal of the legal practice Varner Faddis and former prosecutor, said corporations can be liable. In this scenario, “whether the banks have liability is going to depend, in part, on what the banks knew, whether they had any knowledge of claimed misconduct or criminal wrongdoing”, and somehow offered support to Epstein.

“However, even in that case, I think it’s going to be hard to effectively connect the banks into some kind of trafficking operation. The institutions would probably not be aware of the particulars of allegations,” the lawyer said. While Epstein’s Florida conviction was known, “it’s not illegal for a financial institution to have a customer who’s an unsavory person”.

“It is illegal for a bank to somehow be complicit in the illegal actions of a customer, but those two issues are distinct, and so I think that it’s going to be a difficult case against the institutions.”

Potential Benefits for Survivors

Nevertheless, key elements of the legal proceedings could assist Epstein survivors.

“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 lawsuit, there’s a discovery process, and that discovery process often requires release of materials that was not formerly available.”

Edwards said in a statement that the lawsuits could have a preventive impact and achieve what lawmakers have been unable to do.

“Legal actions are essential for full accountability for the survivors of Jeffrey Epstein – as well as for future would-be victims who will be harmed from similar trafficking organizations – if our banks are not held accountable for the crucial part each performs, either in providing the necessary infrastructure for the criminal enterprise or recognizing the financial component of these crimes and stopping it.

Edwards continued: “We have a far better chance of making a real difference than lawmakers, because we know the details and history of the case and are not motivated by partisan interests but rather by a genuine desire to make a real difference and to protect the victims, who have already suffered tremendously.

“We approach these matters without any partisan motives and thus cannot be deterred by obstructions, protecting wealthy politically connected individuals, or the other embarrassing partisan gamesmanship you and the rest of the world have had to watch unfold recently.”

McCawley said in a declaration: “As Congress works toward unraveling how Jeffrey Epstein was able to orchestrate his criminal sex-trafficking enterprise for decades without detection, we are taking a further significant action forward toward justice for survivors.”

Institutional Reactions

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

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