🔗 Share this article

Over many years, victims of Jeffrey Epstein have demanded accountability. At one point, it seemed like they would get it.

Epstein’s former associate Ghislaine Maxwell, the financier’s one-time partner, was convicted of sex trafficking four years ago for her role in the deceased billionaire’s sexual abuse of teen girls – and given to two decades behind bars.

Meanwhile, banks that had done business with Epstein, although not admitting wrongdoing, agreed to pay hundreds of millions in agreements to survivors. Donald Trump even made releasing 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 government has become involved in allegations about social ties between him and Epstein. Congressional promises to release files have stalled, due to partisan maneuvering and justice department foot-dragging.

However recent legal actions could shed light on Epstein’s activities amid the deadlock – 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 BNY Mellon, claim that these financial powerhouses illicitly enabled Epstein’s sex trafficking. The cases are led by Sigrid S McCawley, of Boies Schiller Flexner, and lawyer Brad Edwards of his legal practice, who have long represented Epstein victims.

“The financier carried out these offenses by means of not only his own vast fortune and influence, but through access to funding and monetary assistance from both individuals and organizations, including BNY,” one lawsuit claims. “Egregiously, BNY had a plethora of information regarding Epstein’s trafficking network but chose profit over safeguarding those harmed.”

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

Attorneys Weigh In on Case Challenges

Experienced lawyers who spoke to the matter said proving such a case would be challenging. But they also noted potential results which could offer comfort to plaintiffs or disclosure of previously hidden details.

Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor 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 financial recovery,” the attorney said. Some claims might be too tangential from a legal standpoint.

“The case hinges on proof,” he said. A attorney would need to prove cause and effect, which would mean “but for the defendant’s conduct, the injury wouldn’t have happened”. In this case, that would translate to “but for the bank’s conduct, the victim maybe wouldn’t have been exploited”, the lawyer explained.

A lawyer would also have to go further than a “but for” measure. “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 bank’s actions has to have been a substantial factor in causing the victim’s suffering.

“Through maintaining financial ties to Epstein, is that a substantial factor? It’s uncertain.”

Regardless of legal responsibility, such lawsuits could put institutions on notice that relationships with those accused of wrongdoing can have damaging implications for them.

“It represents a reputational disaster,” Rahmani noted. If the banks try to get these cases thrown out and fail, the attorney expects a swift settlement. “No party desires to pursue any of the Epstein-related cases.”

Attorney Eric Faddis, a litigator and principal of the legal practice his firm and former prosecutor, said companies can be responsible. In this situation, “if the institutions bear fault is going to hinge, in part, on their level of awareness, if they were informed of alleged abuse or illegal acts”, and in some way provided assistance to Epstein.

“But even then, I think it’s going to be hard to effectively connect the financial entities into some kind of trafficking operation. The institutions would likely not be aware of the particulars of allegations,” the lawyer said. While Epstein’s Florida conviction was known, “it’s not illegal for a financial institution to have a client who’s an unsavory person”.

“However, it is unlawful for a financial firm to in any way be involved 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.”

Possible Advantages for Victims

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

“These cases may uncover additional details about the continuing Epstein story,” Faddis said. “Despite the fact that there have been obstacles erected at every turn for folks pursuing this data, when there’s a legal action, there’s a discovery process, and that legal procedure often requires disclosure of information that was not formerly available.”

Edwards said in a statement that the suits could have a deterrent effect and accomplish what lawmakers have failed to do.

“The lawsuits are necessary for complete justice for the victims of Jeffrey Epstein – as well as for future would-be victims who will be harmed from comparable criminal networks – if our banks are not held accountable for the essential role each performs, either in supplying the necessary infrastructure for the illegal operation or identifying the monetary aspect of these crimes and putting an end to it.

He added: “Our prospects are significantly higher of making a real difference than Congress, because we know the facts and history of the matter and are not driven by politics but rather by a genuine desire to create substantial impact and to safeguard the victims, who have already endured immense pain.

“Our handling of these issues without any political agenda 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.”

Attorney Sigrid McCawley said in a declaration: “As Congress works toward unraveling how the financier was able to orchestrate his illegal trafficking operation for many years without being caught, we are taking another important step forward toward legal resolution for survivors.”

Bank Responses

When requested for a statement on the legal complaint, the Bank of New York Mellon said: “The claims in the lawsuit are meritless, and we will strongly contest against it.”

The bank’s response similarly remarked: “We will vigorously defend ourselves in this case.”