🔗 Share this article

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

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

At the same time, banks that had worked with Epstein, while not admitting wrongdoing, paid hundreds of millions in settlements to survivors. Former President Trump even made disclosing the Epstein investigative files part of his election promises, and reiterated on his commitment to do so in recent months.

In the end, Trump’s justice department did not make public these records, and his administration has become embroiled in allegations about social ties between him and Epstein. Congressional promises to release files have stalled, due to political jockeying and justice department foot-dragging.

But recent legal actions could shed light on Epstein’s operations amid the deadlock – regardless of their result.

Lawsuits Aim at Major Banks

The legal complaints, filed by an anonymous plaintiff against Bank of America and the BNY Mellon, claim that these financial powerhouses unlawfully facilitated Epstein’s sex trafficking. The suits are led by attorney Sigrid McCawley, of a prominent law firm, and Brad Edwards of Edwards Henderson, who have long represented Epstein victims.

“The financier carried out these offenses by means of not only his own extraordinary wealth and power, but through access to funding and monetary assistance from both individuals and organizations, including the bank,” one lawsuit states. “Egregiously, the institution had a plethora of information regarding Epstein’s sex trafficking operation but chose profit over safeguarding those harmed.”

The Bank of America suit echoes these allegations, declaring the institution “knowingly provided the monetary resources and the veneer of institutional legitimacy for Epstein and his co-conspirators to support their international sex trafficking organization under the guise of legal commercial dealings”. The suit also said Bank of America neglected to file mandatory financial alerts.

Legal Experts Weigh In on Legal Hurdles

Experienced lawyers who commented on the matter said establishing liability would be difficult. But they also identified possible outcomes which could offer comfort to plaintiffs or release of previously hidden details.

Neama Rahmani, a ex-government lawyer who established a legal firm, said proof 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 victims, and I want them to get explanations and legal redress and compensation,” the attorney said. Some claims might be not directly related from a legal standpoint.

“It all comes down to evidence,” Rahmani said. A lawyer would need to prove causation, which would mean “if not for the bank’s actions, the injury wouldn’t have occurred”. In this case, that would translate to “but for the bank’s conduct, the survivor 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 legal test. So whatever misconduct there was, if there was any misconduct … the bank’s actions has to have been a key contributor in causing the victim’s suffering.

“By engaging in a business relationship with Epstein, is that a decisive element? It’s uncertain.”

Regardless of legal responsibility, suits like this could serve as a warning that relationships with those involved in alleged crimes can have negative consequences for them.

“It’s a PR nightmare,” Rahmani noted. If the banks try to get these cases thrown out and fail, Rahmani expects a quick resolution. “No one wants to go litigate any of the Epstein-related cases.”

Attorney Eric Faddis, a litigator and founder of the legal practice Varner Faddis and ex-government lawyer, said corporations can be responsible. In this situation, “whether the banks have liability is going to hinge, in part, on their level of awareness, if they were informed of alleged abuse or illegal acts”, and somehow offered support to Epstein.

“However, even in that case, I think it’s going to be hard 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, “there’s no law against for a financial institution to have a customer who’s an disreputable individual”.

“However, it is unlawful for a financial firm to somehow be involved in the criminal activity of a customer, but those two issues are very different, and so I think that it’s going to be a tough lawsuit against the institutions.”

Potential Benefits for Survivors

Nevertheless, key elements of the litigation could assist those affected by Epstein.

“The lawsuits have the potential to reveal more information about the ongoing Epstein saga,” the attorney said. “Even though there have been sort of walls put up at every turn for individuals pursuing this data, when there’s a legal action, there’s a discovery process, and that legal procedure often requires release of information that was not formerly available.”

Attorney Brad Edwards said in a comment that the suits could have a preventive impact and achieve what legislators have failed to do.

“Legal actions are essential for full accountability for the survivors of the financier – as well as for future would-be victims who will suffer from comparable criminal networks – if our banks are not made responsible for the crucial part each plays, either in providing the necessary infrastructure for the criminal enterprise or identifying the monetary aspect of these offenses 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 matter and are not driven by partisan interests but rather by a genuine desire to create substantial impact and to protect the survivors, who have already endured immense pain.

“Our handling of these issues 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 observe recently.”

McCawley said in a declaration: “While legislators attempt to uncover how the financier was able to conduct his criminal sex-trafficking enterprise for decades without detection, we are taking a further significant action forward toward justice for victims.”

Institutional Reactions

Asked for comment on the lawsuit, 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 similarly remarked: “We intend to firmly protect our interests in this matter.”