🔗 Share this article

Over many years, survivors of Jeffrey Epstein have sought justice. At one point, it appeared like they would get it.

Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s ex-girlfriend, was found guilty of sex trafficking in a 2021 trial for her role in the late financier’s sexual abuse of underage females – and sentenced to two decades behind bars.

Meanwhile, banks that had done business with Epstein, although not accepting fault, paid hundreds of millions in agreements to survivors. Former President Trump even made releasing the Epstein investigative files part of his campaign platform, and reiterated on his promise to do so in recent months.

Ultimately, Trump’s justice department did not release these files, and his government has become embroiled in reports about social ties between him and Epstein. Assurances from lawmakers to disclose documents have lagged, due to political jockeying and justice department foot-dragging.

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

Legal Actions Target Major Banks

The legal complaints, submitted by an anonymous plaintiff against Bank of America and the BNY Mellon, claim that these financial powerhouses unlawfully facilitated Epstein’s sex trafficking. The cases are helmed by Sigrid S McCawley, of a prominent law firm, and lawyer Brad Edwards of Edwards Henderson, who have long represented survivors of Epstein’s abuse.

“Epstein committed these crimes by means of not only his own vast fortune and influence, but through access to funding and monetary assistance from both private parties and organizations, including BNY,” the legal filing states. “Shockingly, the institution had a plethora of information regarding Epstein’s trafficking network but chose profit over safeguarding those harmed.”

The Bank of America suit echoes these allegations, declaring the institution “knowingly provided the financial support and the appearance of respectability for Epstein and his co-conspirators to fuel their international sex trafficking organization under the pretext of non-criminal business activities”. The legal action also said Bank of America failed to file mandatory financial alerts.

Legal Experts Offer Perspectives on Case Challenges

Longtime attorneys who spoke to the situation said proving such a case would be difficult. But they also noted possible outcomes which could offer comfort to plaintiffs or disclosure of long-sought information.

Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor who founded a legal firm, said proof has to show that an bank’s conduct led to harm.

“I don’t think the lawsuit has much of a chance of success – and clearly I am on the side of the survivors, and I want them to get explanations and criminal justice and financial recovery,” Rahmani said. Certain allegations might be too tangential from a juridical perspective.

“It all comes down to evidence,” he said. A attorney would need to prove causation, which would mean “but for the defendant’s conduct, the harm wouldn’t have happened”. In this case, that would translate to “absent the institution’s involvement, the victim maybe wouldn’t have been trafficked”, Rahmani clarified.

A lawyer would also have to go beyond 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 any improper behavior there was, if there was any wrongdoing … the bank’s actions has to have been a substantial factor in leading to the plaintiff harm.

“Through maintaining financial ties to Epstein, is that a decisive element? I don’t know.”

Liability aside, such lawsuits could serve as a warning that associations with those involved in alleged crimes can have damaging implications for them.

“It represents a reputational disaster,” he said. If the banks try to get these cases dismissed and are unsuccessful, the attorney expects a swift settlement. “No party desires to pursue any of the Epstein-related cases.”

Eric Faddis, a litigator and founder of the Colorado law firm his firm and former prosecutor, said corporations can be responsible. In this scenario, “if the institutions bear fault is going to depend, in part, on what the banks knew, if they were informed of claimed misconduct or criminal wrongdoing”, and somehow offered support to Epstein.

“However, even in that case, I think it’s going to be difficult to effectively connect the banks into some kind of sex-trafficking scheme. The institutions would probably not be privy to the particulars of claims,” Faddis said. While the financier’s prior legal case was public, “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 involved 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 Victims

That said, important aspects of the litigation could help those affected by Epstein.

“These cases may uncover additional details about the ongoing Epstein saga,” Faddis said. “Despite the fact that there have been sort of walls put up at every turn for individuals pursuing this information, when there’s a lawsuit, there’s a evidence-gathering phase, and that discovery process often mandates disclosure of materials that was not previously public.”

Edwards said in a comment that the suits could have a deterrent effect and accomplish 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 suffer from comparable criminal networks – if our financial institutions are not made responsible for the crucial part each performs, either in providing the required framework for the criminal enterprise or recognizing the financial component of these crimes and stopping it.

Edwards continued: “Our prospects are significantly higher of making a real difference than lawmakers, because we understand the facts and background of the case and are not motivated by politics but rather by a sincere intention to create substantial impact and to protect the survivors, who have already endured immense pain.

“We approach these matters without any political agenda and thus cannot be deterred by obstructions, protecting wealthy politically connected individuals, or the other shameful political maneuvering you and the rest of the world have had to observe recently.”

Attorney Sigrid McCawley said in a declaration: “As Congress works toward unraveling how the financier was able to conduct his criminal sex-trafficking enterprise for many years without detection, we are taking another important step forward toward justice for survivors.”

Institutional Reactions

Asked for comment on the legal complaint, BNY said: “The allegations in the case are baseless, and we will strongly contest against it.”

Bank of America’s statement similarly remarked: “We will vigorously defend ourselves in this case.”