🔗 Share this article

For years, survivors of the late financier Jeffrey Epstein have demanded accountability. At one point, it appeared like they would get it.

Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s ex-girlfriend, was convicted of human trafficking four years ago for her involvement in the deceased billionaire’s sexual abuse of underage females – and sentenced to two decades behind bars.

Meanwhile, banks that had worked with Epstein, while not admitting wrongdoing, paid hundreds of millions in agreements to victims. Former President Trump even made disclosing the Epstein investigative files part of his campaign platform, and doubled down on his commitment to do so early this year.

Ultimately, the administration’s Department of Justice did not make public these files, and his government has become embroiled in reports about personal connections between him and Epstein. Congressional promises to release files 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.

Legal Actions Target Major Banks

These lawsuits, filed by an unnamed accuser against a major U.S. bank and the Bank of New York Mellon (BNY), allege that these financial powerhouses unlawfully facilitated Epstein’s trafficking ring. The suits are led by Sigrid S McCawley, of a prominent law firm, and Brad Edwards of his legal practice, who have consistently advocated for Epstein victims.

“The financier carried out these offenses by means of not only his own extraordinary wealth and influence, but through access to funding and financial support from both individuals and organizations, including the bank,” the legal filing claims. “Egregiously, the institution had a plethora of information regarding Epstein’s sex trafficking operation but chose profit over protecting the victims.”

The Bank of America suit echoes these allegations, 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 guise of non-criminal business activities”. The legal action also said Bank of America neglected to file mandatory financial alerts.

Attorneys Offer Perspectives on Case Challenges

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

Attorney Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor who founded West Coast Trial lawyers, said proof 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. Certain allegations might be not directly related from a legal standpoint.

“It all comes down to evidence,” he 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 occurred”. In this case, that would translate to “absent the institution’s involvement, the victim 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 significant element: that is the legal test. So whatever misconduct there was, if there was any wrongdoing … the defendant’s misconduct has to have been a substantial factor in leading to the plaintiff harm.

“Through maintaining financial ties to Epstein, is that a substantial factor? I don’t know.”

Liability aside, 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,” he said. If the banks try to get these cases thrown out and fail, Rahmani expects a quick resolution. “No one wants to go litigate any of the legal matters tied to Epstein.”

Eric Faddis, a trial attorney and founder of the legal practice Varner Faddis and ex-government lawyer, said companies can be liable. In this scenario, “whether the banks have liability is going to hinge, in part, on their level of awareness, if they were informed of alleged abuse or illegal acts”, and somehow provided assistance to Epstein.

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

“It is illegal for a financial firm to in any way be complicit 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 Victims

Nevertheless, important aspects of the legal proceedings could help those affected by Epstein.

“The lawsuits have the potential to reveal more information about the continuing Epstein story,” Faddis said. “Even though there have been sort of walls put up 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 disclosure of information that was not previously public.”

Attorney Brad Edwards said in a statement that the suits could have a preventive impact and accomplish what legislators have failed to do.

“The lawsuits are necessary for complete justice for the survivors of the financier – as well as for potential targets who will be harmed from comparable criminal networks – if our banks are not made responsible for the essential role each plays, either in supplying the necessary infrastructure for the criminal enterprise or recognizing the financial component of these offenses and stopping it.

Edwards continued: “We have a far better chance of effecting meaningful change than Congress, because we understand the facts and background of the case and are not motivated by politics but rather by a sincere intention to create substantial impact and to protect the survivors, who have already suffered tremendously.

“We approach these matters without any political agenda and thus will not be swayed by obstructions, 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 statement: “While legislators attempt to uncover how the financier was able to conduct his criminal sex-trafficking enterprise for decades without detection, 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 vigorously defend against it.”

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