🔗 Share this article

Over many years, survivors of the late financier Jeffrey Epstein have demanded accountability. For a while, it appeared like they would achieve it.

Epstein’s former associate Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s ex-girlfriend, was found guilty of human trafficking four years ago for her involvement in the deceased billionaire’s exploitation of underage females – and sentenced to 20 years imprisonment.

Meanwhile, financial firms that had done business with Epstein, while not accepting fault, agreed to pay substantial sums in settlements to survivors. Former President Trump even made disclosing the Epstein investigative files part of his campaign platform, and reiterated on his commitment to do so in recent months.

Ultimately, the administration’s Department of Justice did not release these files, and his government has become involved in allegations about personal connections between him and Epstein. Congressional promises to disclose documents have lagged, due to partisan maneuvering and justice department foot-dragging.

But recent legal actions could provide clarity on Epstein’s operations amid the deadlock – irrespective of their result.

Lawsuits Aim at Major Banks

The legal complaints, filed by an anonymous plaintiff against a major U.S. bank and the Bank of New York Mellon (BNY), allege that these banking giants unlawfully facilitated Epstein’s trafficking ring. The cases are led by attorney Sigrid 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 power, but through access to funding and monetary assistance from both private parties and institutions, including the bank,” one lawsuit states. “Egregiously, BNY had a plethora of information regarding Epstein’s trafficking network but chose profit over protecting the victims.”

The complaint against Bank of America mirrors these claims, asserting the institution “deliberately supplied the financial support and the appearance of respectability for Epstein and his accomplices to support their global trafficking enterprise under the pretext of legal commercial dealings”. The legal action also said the bank failed to file suspicious activity reports.

Attorneys Weigh In on Legal Hurdles

Experienced lawyers who commented on the situation said establishing liability would be challenging. But they also identified potential results which could provide solace to plaintiffs or disclosure of previously hidden details.

Attorney Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor who established West Coast Trial lawyers, said proof 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 criminal justice and compensation,” the attorney said. Certain allegations might be not directly related from a juridical perspective.

“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 occurred”. In this case, that would translate to “absent the institution’s involvement, the victim maybe wouldn’t have been trafficked”, Rahmani explained.

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 standard. So any improper behavior there was, if there was any misconduct … the bank’s actions has to have been a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff harm.

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

Regardless of legal responsibility, suits like this could put institutions on notice that relationships with those accused of wrongdoing can have negative consequences for them.

“It’s a PR nightmare,” Rahmani noted. If the banks try to get these cases thrown out and fail, the attorney anticipates a swift settlement. “No party desires to pursue any of the legal matters tied to Epstein.”

Attorney Eric Faddis, a trial attorney and principal of the Colorado law firm Varner Faddis and former prosecutor, said companies can be responsible. In this situation, “whether the banks have liability is going to hinge, in part, on their level of awareness, whether they had any knowledge of claimed misconduct or criminal wrongdoing”, and somehow offered support 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 details of allegations,” Faddis said. While Epstein’s Florida conviction was public, “there’s no law against for a financial institution to have a client who’s an disreputable individual”.

“It is illegal for a financial firm to in any way be complicit in the illegal actions of a customer, but these aspects are very different, 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 legal proceedings could help Epstein survivors.

“The lawsuits have the potential to reveal more information about the continuing Epstein story,” the attorney said. “Despite the fact that there have been obstacles erected at every turn for individuals seeking this information, when there’s a legal action, there’s a evidence-gathering phase, and that legal procedure often requires release of materials that was not formerly available.”

Edwards said in a comment that the lawsuits could have a preventive impact and accomplish what lawmakers have been unable to do.

“The lawsuits are necessary for complete justice for the survivors of Jeffrey Epstein – as well as for future would-be victims who will suffer from comparable criminal networks – if our banks are not made responsible for the crucial part each performs, either in supplying the necessary infrastructure 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 Congress, because we know the details and history of the matter and are not driven by politics but rather by a genuine desire to make a real difference and to safeguard the survivors, who have already endured immense pain.

“We approach these matters without any partisan motives 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 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 many years without detection, we are taking a further significant action forward toward justice for survivors.”

Bank Responses

Asked for comment on the lawsuit, BNY said: “The claims in the lawsuit are meritless, and we will strongly contest against it.”

Bank of America’s statement similarly remarked: “We intend to firmly protect our interests in this case.”