🔗 Share this article

Over many years, victims of Jeffrey Epstein have sought accountability. At one point, it appeared like they would achieve it.

Ghislaine Maxwell, the financier’s one-time partner, was found guilty of sex trafficking four years ago for her involvement in the late financier’s exploitation of underage females – and given to two decades behind bars.

At the same time, financial firms that had done business with Epstein, while not admitting wrongdoing, agreed to pay hundreds of millions in settlements to victims. Donald Trump even made releasing the Epstein investigative files part of his campaign platform, and doubled down on his promise to do so in recent months.

Ultimately, Trump’s justice department did not release these records, and his government has become embroiled in allegations about social ties between him and Epstein. Assurances from lawmakers to release files have lagged, due to partisan maneuvering and justice department foot-dragging.

However two new lawsuits could provide clarity on Epstein’s activities amid the stalemate – regardless of their outcome.

Lawsuits Aim at Major Banks

The legal complaints, filed by an anonymous plaintiff against Bank of America and the BNY Mellon, claim that these financial powerhouses unlawfully facilitated Epstein’s sex trafficking. The cases are helmed by attorney Sigrid McCawley, of Boies Schiller Flexner, and Brad Edwards of Edwards Henderson, who have consistently advocated for Epstein victims.

“Epstein committed these crimes by means of not only his own vast fortune and power, but through financial backing and financial support from both private parties and organizations, including BNY,” the legal filing states. “Egregiously, 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 “deliberately supplied the monetary resources and the appearance of respectability 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 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 possible outcomes which could offer comfort to accusers or disclosure of long-sought information.

Neama Rahmani, a ex-government lawyer who established a legal firm, said proof has to show that an bank’s conduct led to 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,” Rahmani said. Certain allegations might be not directly related from a juridical perspective.

“The case hinges on proof,” Rahmani said. A lawyer 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 instance, that would translate to “but for the bank’s conduct, the victim maybe wouldn’t have been trafficked”, Rahmani explained.

A lawyer would also have to go beyond 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 any improper behavior there was, if there was any misconduct … the bank’s actions has to have been a key contributor in leading to the victim’s suffering.

“By engaging in a business relationship with Epstein, is that a substantial factor? It’s uncertain.”

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

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

Eric Faddis, a trial attorney and founder of the legal practice Varner Faddis and ex-government lawyer, said companies can be responsible. In this scenario, “if the institutions bear fault is going to hinge, in part, on their level of awareness, if they were informed of claimed misconduct or illegal acts”, and in some way offered support to Epstein.

“However, even in that case, I think it’s going to be difficult to effectively connect the banks into some kind of trafficking operation. The banks would likely not be privy to the details of allegations,” the lawyer said. While the financier’s prior legal case was public, “it’s not illegal for a financial institution to have a customer who’s an disreputable individual”.

“However, it is unlawful for a bank to somehow be involved 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 banks.”

Potential Benefits for Victims

Nevertheless, key elements of the litigation could help those affected by Epstein.

“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 pursuing this data, when there’s a legal action, there’s a discovery process, and that legal procedure often requires disclosure of materials that was not previously public.”

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 victims of Jeffrey Epstein – as well as for future would-be victims who will be harmed from comparable criminal networks – if our financial institutions are not held accountable 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 putting an end to it.

He added: “Our prospects are significantly higher of effecting meaningful change than lawmakers, because we understand the details and history of the matter and are not motivated by politics but rather by a sincere intention to make a real difference and to protect the survivors, who have already endured immense pain.

“Our handling of these issues without any partisan motives and thus will not be swayed 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.”

McCawley said in a statement: “As Congress works toward unraveling how the financier was able to conduct his illegal trafficking operation for decades without being caught, we are taking a further significant action forward toward justice for survivors.”

Institutional Reactions

When requested for a statement on the lawsuit, BNY said: “The allegations in the case are baseless, and we will strongly contest against it.”

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