🔗 Share this article

For years, survivors of Jeffrey Epstein have sought justice. For a while, it appeared like they would achieve it.

Ghislaine Maxwell, the financier’s one-time partner, was convicted of human trafficking in a 2021 trial for her role in the deceased billionaire’s exploitation of teen girls – and given to 20 years imprisonment.

At the same time, banks that had done business with Epstein, while not accepting fault, agreed to pay hundreds of millions in agreements to victims. Former President Trump even made releasing the Epstein investigative files part of his campaign platform, and doubled down on his promise to do so early this year.

In the end, Trump’s justice department did not release these files, and his government has become involved in reports about personal connections between him and Epstein. Congressional promises to release files have lagged, due to political jockeying and delays from federal authorities.

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

Legal Actions Aim at Leading Financial Institutions

The legal complaints, submitted by an anonymous plaintiff against Bank of America and the Bank of New York Mellon (BNY), allege that these financial powerhouses illicitly enabled Epstein’s sex trafficking. The cases are helmed by attorney Sigrid McCawley, of Boies Schiller Flexner, and Brad Edwards of his legal practice, who have consistently advocated for survivors of Epstein’s abuse.

“The financier carried out these offenses by means of not only his own extraordinary wealth and power, but through financial backing and monetary assistance from both individuals and organizations, including the bank,” the legal filing claims. “Shockingly, BNY had a plethora of information regarding Epstein’s trafficking network but opted for financial gain over safeguarding those harmed.”

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 co-conspirators to support their global trafficking enterprise under the pretext of legal commercial dealings”. The suit also said the bank neglected to file suspicious activity reports.

Legal Experts Offer Perspectives on Case Challenges

Experienced lawyers who spoke to the situation said establishing liability would be difficult. But they also identified potential results which could offer comfort to plaintiffs or release of long-sought information.

Neama Rahmani, a ex-government lawyer who established a legal firm, said evidence has to show that an bank’s conduct 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 answers and criminal justice 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 “if not for the bank’s actions, the injury wouldn’t have happened”. In this case, that would boil down 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 substantial factor: that is the legal test. So any improper behavior there was, if there was any wrongdoing … the defendant’s misconduct has to have been a key contributor in leading to the victim’s suffering.

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

Liability aside, such lawsuits could serve as a warning that relationships with those accused of wrongdoing can have negative consequences for them.

“It’s a PR nightmare,” he said. If the banks try to get these cases dismissed and are unsuccessful, the attorney anticipates a quick resolution. “No one wants to go litigate any of the legal matters tied to Epstein.”

Eric Faddis, a litigator and founder of the Colorado law firm his firm and ex-government lawyer, said corporations can be responsible. In this scenario, “if the institutions bear fault is going to depend, in part, on their level of awareness, if they were informed of alleged abuse or criminal wrongdoing”, and somehow provided assistance to Epstein.

“But even then, I think it’s going to be difficult to sort of loop the banks into some kind of sex-trafficking scheme. The banks would likely not be privy to the details of allegations,” Faddis said. While Epstein’s Florida conviction was known, “there’s no law against for a financial institution to have a client who’s an disreputable individual”.

“However, it is unlawful for a bank to in any way be involved in the illegal actions of a customer, but these aspects are distinct, and so I think that it’s going to be a tough lawsuit against the banks.”

Possible Advantages for Victims

Nevertheless, key elements of the legal proceedings could help those affected by Epstein.

“These cases may uncover additional details about the ongoing Epstein saga,” the attorney said. “Even though there have been obstacles erected at every turn for individuals pursuing this information, when there’s a lawsuit, there’s a discovery process, and that legal procedure often mandates disclosure 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 failed to do.

“The lawsuits are necessary for complete justice for the victims of the financier – as well as for future would-be victims who will suffer from similar trafficking organizations – if our financial institutions are not made responsible for the essential role each plays, either in supplying the necessary infrastructure for the criminal enterprise or identifying the financial component of these crimes and putting an end to it.

He added: “Our prospects are significantly higher of effecting meaningful change than lawmakers, because we know the details and background of the case and are not driven 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 will not be swayed by obstructions, shielding influential figures, or the other embarrassing partisan gamesmanship you and the rest of the world have had to watch unfold recently.”

McCawley said in a declaration: “While legislators attempt to uncover how Jeffrey Epstein was able to conduct his criminal sex-trafficking enterprise for many years without being caught, we are taking a further significant action forward toward legal resolution for victims.”

Institutional Reactions

Asked for comment on the legal complaint, the Bank of New York Mellon said: “The allegations in the case are baseless, and we will vigorously defend against it.”

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