🔗 Share this article

For years, victims of the late financier 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 underage females – and given to two decades behind bars.

At the same time, financial firms that had done business with Epstein, although not accepting fault, paid hundreds of millions in agreements to victims. Donald Trump even made disclosing the Epstein investigative files part of his election promises, and reiterated on his commitment to do so early this year.

Ultimately, Trump’s justice department did not release these records, and his government has become involved in reports about personal connections between him and Epstein. Congressional promises to disclose documents have lagged, due to partisan maneuvering and justice department foot-dragging.

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

Lawsuits Target Leading Financial Institutions

These lawsuits, submitted by an anonymous plaintiff against a major U.S. bank and the BNY Mellon, claim that these banking giants unlawfully facilitated Epstein’s sex trafficking. The suits are helmed by Sigrid S 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 influence, but through financial backing and monetary assistance from both individuals and organizations, including the bank,” the legal filing states. “Egregiously, BNY had a abundance of knowledge regarding Epstein’s trafficking network but opted for financial gain over safeguarding those harmed.”

The complaint against Bank of America echoes these allegations, declaring the institution “deliberately supplied the monetary resources and the appearance of respectability for Epstein and his co-conspirators to support their international sex trafficking organization under the pretext of non-criminal business activities”. The legal action also said the bank neglected to file mandatory financial alerts.

Attorneys Offer Perspectives on Case Challenges

Longtime attorneys who commented on the matter said establishing liability would be challenging. But they also identified possible outcomes which could offer comfort 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 led to 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 criminal justice and financial recovery,” the attorney said. Some claims might be too tangential from a juridical perspective.

“It all comes down to evidence,” Rahmani said. A lawyer would need to prove cause and effect, which would mean “but for the defendant’s conduct, the injury wouldn’t have occurred”. In this instance, that would translate to “but for the bank’s conduct, the survivor maybe wouldn’t have been exploited”, 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 legal test. 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.

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

Liability aside, suits like this could serve as a warning that associations with those involved in alleged crimes can have negative consequences for them.

“It represents a reputational disaster,” he said. If the financial institutions try to get these suits thrown out and are unsuccessful, Rahmani anticipates a quick resolution. “No party desires to pursue any of the Epstein-related cases.”

Attorney Eric Faddis, a trial attorney and principal of the legal practice his firm and former prosecutor, said corporations can be liable. In this situation, “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 in some way offered support to Epstein.

“However, even in that case, I think it’s going to be difficult to sort of loop the banks into some kind of sex-trafficking scheme. The institutions would probably not be privy to the details of allegations,” the lawyer said. While the financier’s prior legal case was known, “there’s no law against for a financial institution to have a customer who’s an disreputable individual”.

“It is illegal for a financial firm to in any way be complicit in the criminal activity of a customer, but these aspects are distinct, 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 those affected by Epstein.

“These cases may uncover additional details about the continuing Epstein story,” Faddis said. “Even though there have been obstacles erected at every turn for folks pursuing this information, when there’s a lawsuit, there’s a evidence-gathering phase, and that discovery process often mandates release of materials that was not previously public.”

Attorney Brad Edwards said in a statement that the lawsuits could have a preventive impact and achieve what lawmakers have been unable to do.

“Legal actions are essential for full accountability for the victims of Jeffrey Epstein – as well as for potential targets who will suffer from similar trafficking organizations – if our financial institutions are not held accountable for the crucial part each plays, either in providing the required framework for the criminal enterprise or recognizing the monetary aspect of these crimes and stopping it.

Edwards continued: “Our prospects are significantly higher of making a real difference than Congress, because we understand the details and background of the case and are not driven by partisan interests but rather by a sincere intention to make a real difference 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 shutdowns, protecting wealthy politically connected individuals, or the other shameful political maneuvering you and the rest of the world have had to watch unfold recently.”

McCawley said in a declaration: “As Congress works toward unraveling how Jeffrey Epstein was able to orchestrate his criminal sex-trafficking enterprise for decades without being caught, we are taking another important step forward toward justice for survivors.”

Institutional Reactions

Asked for comment on the lawsuit, the Bank of New York Mellon said: “The allegations in the case are baseless, and we will strongly contest against it.”

The bank’s response similarly remarked: “We intend to firmly protect our interests in this matter.”