🔗 Share this article

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

Epstein’s former associate Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s ex-girlfriend, was convicted of sex trafficking in a 2021 trial for her role in the deceased billionaire’s exploitation of underage females – and given to two decades behind bars.

Meanwhile, financial firms that had done business with Epstein, although not admitting wrongdoing, agreed to pay substantial sums 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. Congressional promises to disclose documents have stalled, due to partisan maneuvering and delays from federal authorities.

However recent legal actions could provide clarity on Epstein’s activities amid the deadlock – regardless of their outcome.

Lawsuits Aim at Leading Financial Institutions

These lawsuits, filed by an anonymous plaintiff against a major U.S. bank and the BNY Mellon, claim that these financial powerhouses illicitly enabled Epstein’s trafficking ring. The cases are helmed by Sigrid S McCawley, of Boies Schiller Flexner, and Brad Edwards of his legal practice, who have long represented Epstein victims.

“Epstein committed these crimes by means of not only his own extraordinary wealth and power, but through financial backing and monetary assistance from both private parties and institutions, including BNY,” one lawsuit claims. “Egregiously, the institution had a plethora of information regarding Epstein’s sex trafficking operation but chose profit over protecting the victims.”

The complaint against Bank of America 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 pretext of non-criminal business activities”. The suit also said the bank neglected to file mandatory financial alerts.

Attorneys Weigh In on Case Challenges

Experienced lawyers who commented on the matter said proving such a case would be challenging. But they also identified potential results which could provide solace to plaintiffs or disclosure of long-sought information.

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 clearly I am on the side of the victims, and I want them to get explanations and legal redress and compensation,” 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 injury wouldn’t have occurred”. In this case, that would boil down to “absent the institution’s involvement, the survivor maybe wouldn’t have been exploited”, Rahmani clarified.

A lawyer 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 any improper behavior there was, if there was any wrongdoing … the defendant’s misconduct has to have been a substantial factor in leading to the victim’s suffering.

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

Liability aside, such lawsuits could serve as a warning that relationships with those involved in alleged crimes can have negative consequences for them.

“It’s a PR nightmare,” he said. If the banks try to get these suits dismissed and fail, Rahmani expects a swift settlement. “No one wants to go litigate any of the Epstein-related cases.”

Attorney Eric Faddis, a trial attorney and principal of the Colorado law firm Varner Faddis and ex-government lawyer, said corporations can be responsible. In this scenario, “if the institutions bear fault is going to hinge, in part, on what the banks knew, if they were informed of alleged abuse or illegal acts”, and in some way provided assistance to Epstein.

“However, even in that case, I think it’s going to be difficult to effectively connect the financial entities into some kind of trafficking operation. The banks would probably not be privy to the details of claims,” the lawyer said. While Epstein’s Florida conviction was public, “there’s no law against 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 involved 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 banks.”

Possible Advantages for Survivors

Nevertheless, key elements of the legal proceedings could help 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 folks pursuing this information, when there’s a legal action, there’s a evidence-gathering phase, and that legal procedure often requires disclosure of materials that was not formerly available.”

Attorney Brad 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 survivors of the financier – as well as for potential targets who will be harmed from similar trafficking organizations – if our banks are not held accountable for the essential role each performs, either in providing the required framework for the criminal enterprise or recognizing the financial component of these crimes and putting an end to it.

He added: “Our prospects are significantly higher 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 create substantial impact and to protect the victims, who have already endured immense pain.

“Our handling of these issues without any partisan motives and thus will not be swayed 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 conduct his illegal trafficking operation for decades without being caught, we are taking another important step forward toward justice for survivors.”

Bank Responses

When requested for a statement on the lawsuit, BNY said: “The claims in the lawsuit are meritless, and we will strongly contest against it.”

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