🔗 Share this article

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

Epstein’s former associate Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s ex-girlfriend, was found guilty of human trafficking four years ago for her role in the late financier’s exploitation of teen girls – and sentenced to 20 years imprisonment.

At the same time, banks that had done business with Epstein, although not admitting wrongdoing, agreed to pay hundreds of millions in settlements to survivors. Donald Trump even made disclosing the documents related to the Epstein probe part of his election promises, and doubled down on his commitment to do so early this year.

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

However two new lawsuits could shed light on Epstein’s operations amid the deadlock – irrespective of their outcome.

Legal Actions Aim at Leading Financial Institutions

These lawsuits, submitted by an unnamed accuser against Bank of America and the Bank of New York Mellon (BNY), claim that these financial powerhouses illicitly enabled Epstein’s trafficking ring. The suits are helmed by attorney Sigrid McCawley, of a prominent law firm, and lawyer Brad Edwards of Edwards Henderson, who have long represented Epstein victims.

“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 individuals and institutions, including BNY,” one lawsuit claims. “Shockingly, BNY had a abundance of knowledge regarding Epstein’s sex trafficking operation but opted for financial gain over protecting the victims.”

The complaint against Bank of America mirrors these claims, asserting the institution “knowingly provided the monetary resources and the veneer of institutional legitimacy 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.

Legal Experts Offer Perspectives on Legal Hurdles

Experienced lawyers who commented on the situation said proving such a case would be difficult. But they also noted potential results which could offer comfort to plaintiffs or release of previously hidden details.

Neama Rahmani, a ex-government lawyer who established West Coast Trial lawyers, said evidence has to show that an institution’s actions led to harm.

“In my view, the case faces significant obstacles – and obviously I am on the side of the survivors, and I want them to get answers and criminal justice and financial recovery,” Rahmani said. Some claims might be too tangential from a legal standpoint.

“It all comes down to evidence,” he said. A attorney would need to prove causation, which would mean “but for the defendant’s conduct, the harm wouldn’t have happened”. In this instance, that would translate to “absent the institution’s involvement, the survivor maybe wouldn’t have been exploited”, the lawyer 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 misconduct … the defendant’s misconduct has to have been a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff harm.

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

Regardless of legal responsibility, such lawsuits could serve as a warning that relationships with those involved in alleged crimes can have damaging implications for them.

“It’s a PR nightmare,” he said. If the banks try to get these suits thrown out and are unsuccessful, the attorney anticipates a quick resolution. “No party desires to pursue any of the Epstein-related cases.”

Eric Faddis, a trial attorney and principal of the Colorado law firm 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, whether they had any knowledge of claimed misconduct or illegal acts”, and somehow provided assistance to Epstein.

“But even then, I think it’s going to be difficult to effectively connect the financial entities into some kind of sex-trafficking scheme. The institutions would probably not be aware of the particulars of allegations,” Faddis said. While the financier’s prior legal case was public, “there’s no law against for a bank to have a customer who’s an unsavory person”.

“It is illegal for a bank to somehow be involved in the illegal actions of a customer, 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 Survivors

Nevertheless, important aspects of the litigation could help Epstein survivors.

“These cases may uncover additional details about the ongoing Epstein saga,” the attorney said. “Even though there have been sort of walls put up 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 disclosure of materials that was not formerly available.”

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

“Legal actions are essential for full accountability for the survivors of Jeffrey Epstein – as well as for future would-be victims who will be harmed from comparable criminal networks – if our banks are not made responsible for the crucial part each plays, either in providing the required framework for the illegal operation or identifying the financial component of these crimes and putting an end to it.

He added: “We have a far better chance of making a real difference than lawmakers, because we understand the details and background of the case and are not driven by partisan interests 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 political agenda and thus will not be swayed by shutdowns, shielding influential figures, 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 conduct his illegal trafficking operation for many years without detection, we are taking another important step forward toward justice for survivors.”

Institutional Reactions

When requested for a statement on the lawsuit, BNY said: “The claims in the lawsuit are meritless, and we will vigorously defend against it.”

Bank of America’s statement likewise stated: “We intend to firmly protect our interests in this matter.”