🔗 Share this article

For years, survivors of the late financier Jeffrey Epstein have demanded justice. At one point, it seemed like they would achieve it.

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

At the same time, banks that had done business with Epstein, although not admitting wrongdoing, paid substantial sums in settlements to survivors. Donald Trump even made disclosing the documents related to the Epstein probe part of his election promises, and reiterated on his commitment to do so early this year.

In the end, Trump’s justice department did not release these records, and his administration has become involved in reports about social ties between him and Epstein. Congressional promises to disclose documents have lagged, due to partisan maneuvering and delays from federal authorities.

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

Legal Actions Aim at Major Banks

These lawsuits, filed by an anonymous plaintiff against Bank of America and the BNY Mellon, allege that these banking giants unlawfully facilitated Epstein’s sex trafficking. The suits are led by attorney Sigrid McCawley, of a prominent law firm, and lawyer 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 financial backing and financial support from both individuals and organizations, including BNY,” the legal filing claims. “Shockingly, BNY had a abundance of knowledge regarding Epstein’s sex trafficking operation but opted for financial gain over safeguarding those harmed.”

The Bank of America suit mirrors these claims, declaring the institution “knowingly provided the financial support and the veneer of institutional legitimacy for Epstein and his co-conspirators to support their global trafficking enterprise under the pretext of legal commercial dealings”. The suit also said the bank failed to file suspicious activity reports.

Attorneys Weigh In on Case Challenges

Experienced lawyers who commented on the situation said proving such a case would be challenging. But they also noted possible outcomes which could provide solace to plaintiffs or release of previously hidden details.

Neama Rahmani, a ex-government lawyer who established a legal firm, 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 explanations and legal redress and compensation,” Rahmani said. Certain allegations might be too tangential from a legal standpoint.

“The case hinges on proof,” Rahmani said. A attorney would need to prove cause and effect, which would mean “but for the defendant’s conduct, the harm wouldn’t have happened”. In this instance, that would translate to “absent the institution’s involvement, the survivor maybe wouldn’t have been exploited”, Rahmani clarified.

An attorney would also have to go further than a basic causation test. “Is not just ‘but for’ causation. It also has to be a substantial factor: 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.

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

Regardless of legal responsibility, suits like this could serve as a warning that relationships 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 fail, the attorney expects a swift settlement. “No party desires to pursue any of the Epstein-related cases.”

Eric Faddis, a litigator and principal of the Colorado law firm his firm and former prosecutor, said corporations can be liable. In this situation, “whether the banks have liability is going to depend, in part, on what the banks knew, if they were informed of claimed misconduct or criminal wrongdoing”, and somehow provided assistance to Epstein.

“But even then, I think it’s going to be difficult to effectively connect the financial entities 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, “there’s no law against for a bank to have a customer who’s an disreputable individual”.

“However, it is unlawful for a bank to in any way be complicit in the criminal activity of a client, but these aspects are very different, and so I think that it’s going to be a tough lawsuit against the institutions.”

Potential Benefits for Victims

That said, important aspects of the litigation 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 pursuing this data, when there’s a lawsuit, there’s a evidence-gathering phase, and that legal procedure often mandates release of materials that was not formerly available.”

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

“The lawsuits are necessary for complete justice for the survivors of Jeffrey Epstein – as well as for potential targets who will suffer from comparable criminal networks – if our financial institutions are not made responsible for the crucial part each performs, either in supplying the required framework for the criminal enterprise or identifying the monetary aspect of these offenses and putting an end to it.

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

“Our handling of these issues without any political agenda and thus cannot be deterred by shutdowns, shielding influential figures, or the other shameful political maneuvering you and the rest of the world have had to observe recently.”

McCawley said in a statement: “As Congress works toward unraveling how the financier 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

When requested for a statement on the lawsuit, BNY said: “The allegations in the case are baseless, and we will vigorously defend against it.”

Bank of America’s statement likewise stated: “We intend to firmly protect our interests in this matter.”