🔗 Share this article

For years, survivors of the late financier Jeffrey Epstein have sought accountability. At one point, it seemed 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 teen girls – and sentenced to 20 years imprisonment.

At the same time, banks that had worked with Epstein, although not accepting fault, agreed to pay hundreds of millions in settlements to survivors. Donald Trump even made releasing the documents related to the Epstein probe part of his election promises, and reiterated on his promise to do so in recent months.

In the end, the administration’s Department of Justice did not release these records, and his administration has become involved in reports about social ties between him and Epstein. Congressional promises to disclose documents 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 result.

Legal Actions 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 suits are led by attorney Sigrid McCawley, of a prominent law firm, and Brad Edwards of his legal practice, who have long represented Epstein victims.

“The financier carried out these offenses by means of not only his own extraordinary wealth and influence, but through financial backing and monetary assistance from both individuals and institutions, 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, declaring the institution “knowingly provided the monetary resources and the appearance of respectability for Epstein and his accomplices 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 Offer Perspectives on Legal Hurdles

Experienced lawyers who commented on the situation said establishing liability would be difficult. But they also identified potential results which could offer comfort to accusers or disclosure of previously hidden details.

Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor who established West Coast Trial lawyers, said proof has to show that an bank’s conduct resulted in harm.

“In my view, the case faces significant obstacles – and obviously I am on the side of the victims, and I want them to get explanations and criminal justice and financial recovery,” the attorney said. Certain allegations might be too tangential from a juridical perspective.

“It all comes down to evidence,” he said. A lawyer would need to prove causation, which would mean “if not for the bank’s actions, the harm wouldn’t have happened”. In this instance, that would boil down to “absent the institution’s involvement, the victim maybe wouldn’t have been trafficked”, Rahmani 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 whatever misconduct there was, if there was any misconduct … the defendant’s misconduct 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.”

Liability aside, suits like this could put institutions on notice that associations with those accused of wrongdoing can have damaging implications for them.

“It’s a PR nightmare,” Rahmani noted. If the financial institutions try to get these cases thrown out and fail, the attorney expects a quick resolution. “No one wants to go litigate any of the legal matters tied to Epstein.”

Eric Faddis, a litigator and founder of the Colorado law firm his firm and ex-government lawyer, said corporations can be liable. In this situation, “if the institutions bear fault is going to hinge, in part, on their level of awareness, whether they had any knowledge of alleged abuse or illegal acts”, and in some way provided assistance to Epstein.

“But even then, I think it’s going to be difficult to sort of loop the banks 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 known, “it’s not illegal for a financial institution to have a customer who’s an unsavory person”.

“It is illegal for a financial firm to somehow be complicit in the criminal activity 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

That said, key elements of the legal proceedings could help Epstein survivors.

“The lawsuits have the potential to reveal more information about the ongoing Epstein saga,” the attorney said. “Despite the fact that there have been obstacles erected at every turn for folks pursuing this data, when there’s a lawsuit, there’s a discovery process, and that legal procedure often requires disclosure of information that was not formerly available.”

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

“Legal actions are essential for full accountability for the victims of Jeffrey Epstein – as well as for potential targets who will be harmed from comparable criminal networks – if our financial institutions are not made responsible for the essential role each performs, either in supplying the required framework for the criminal enterprise or identifying the monetary aspect of these crimes and putting an end to it.

Edwards continued: “Our prospects are significantly higher of making a real difference than lawmakers, because we understand the details and history of the matter and are not motivated by politics but rather by a genuine desire to make a real difference and to safeguard the victims, who have already suffered tremendously.

“Our handling of these issues without any political agenda and thus cannot be deterred 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 statement: “While legislators attempt to uncover how the financier was able to conduct his illegal trafficking operation for many years without being caught, we are taking another important step forward toward justice for survivors.”

Bank Responses

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.”

Bank of America’s statement likewise stated: “We will vigorously defend ourselves in this matter.”