🔗 Share this article

For years, victims of the late financier Jeffrey Epstein have sought justice. 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 in a 2021 trial for her involvement in the deceased billionaire’s exploitation of teen girls – and sentenced to 20 years imprisonment.

Meanwhile, banks that had worked with Epstein, although not accepting fault, paid hundreds of millions in settlements to victims. Donald Trump even made disclosing the documents related to the Epstein probe part of his campaign platform, and doubled down on his promise to do so in recent months.

In the end, Trump’s justice department did not release these files, 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 operations amid the deadlock – irrespective of their outcome.

Lawsuits Aim at Leading Financial Institutions

These lawsuits, filed by an unnamed accuser against a major U.S. bank and the BNY Mellon, allege that these financial powerhouses illicitly enabled Epstein’s trafficking ring. The cases are helmed by attorney Sigrid McCawley, of a prominent law firm, and lawyer Brad Edwards of Edwards Henderson, who have consistently advocated for survivors of Epstein’s abuse.

“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 institutions, including BNY,” the legal filing states. “Egregiously, the institution had a plethora of information regarding Epstein’s sex trafficking operation but chose profit over safeguarding those harmed.”

The Bank of America suit 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 pretext of non-criminal business activities”. The legal action also said the bank neglected to file suspicious activity reports.

Attorneys Weigh In on Legal Hurdles

Longtime attorneys who commented on the situation said proving such a case would be challenging. But they also noted possible outcomes which could offer comfort to plaintiffs or release of long-sought information.

Neama Rahmani, a ex-government lawyer who established a legal firm, said evidence has to show that an institution’s actions resulted in harm.

“In my view, the case faces significant obstacles – and clearly I am on the side of the survivors, and I want them to get explanations and legal redress and financial recovery,” the attorney said. Certain allegations might be not directly related from a juridical perspective.

“The case hinges on proof,” he said. A attorney 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 victim maybe wouldn’t have been exploited”, Rahmani explained.

A lawyer would also have to go beyond a basic causation test. “Is not just ‘but for’ causation. It also has to be a significant element: that is the standard. So whatever misconduct 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 decisive element? I don’t know.”

Regardless of legal responsibility, such lawsuits could serve as a warning that relationships 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 suits dismissed and are unsuccessful, the attorney anticipates a quick resolution. “No one wants to go litigate any of the legal matters tied to Epstein.”

Attorney Eric Faddis, a trial attorney and founder of the Colorado law firm Varner Faddis and former prosecutor, said corporations can be responsible. In this situation, “if the institutions bear fault is going to hinge, in part, on what the banks knew, whether they had any knowledge of alleged abuse or criminal wrongdoing”, and somehow offered support to Epstein.

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

“It is illegal for a bank to in any way be involved in the illegal actions of a client, but these aspects are distinct, and so I think that it’s going to be a difficult case against the institutions.”

Potential Benefits for Victims

That said, important aspects 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 obstacles erected at every turn for individuals seeking this data, when there’s a lawsuit, there’s a evidence-gathering phase, and that legal procedure often mandates disclosure of materials that was not formerly available.”

Edwards said in a statement that the suits could have a deterrent effect and achieve what legislators have been unable 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 financial institutions are not held accountable for the essential role each performs, either in providing the required framework for the illegal operation or identifying the financial component of these crimes and stopping it.

Edwards continued: “Our prospects are significantly higher of effecting meaningful change than lawmakers, because we know the details and history of the case and are not motivated by partisan interests but rather by a sincere intention to create substantial impact and to protect the survivors, who have already suffered tremendously.

“Our handling of these issues 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 observe recently.”

McCawley said in a statement: “While legislators attempt to uncover how Jeffrey Epstein was able to conduct his illegal trafficking operation for decades without detection, we are taking another important step forward toward legal resolution for victims.”

Institutional Reactions

When requested for a statement on the legal complaint, BNY said: “The allegations in the case are baseless, and we will vigorously defend against it.”

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