🔗 Share this article

For years, survivors of the late financier Jeffrey Epstein have sought justice. For a while, it appeared like they would achieve it.

Ghislaine Maxwell, the financier’s one-time partner, was convicted of human trafficking four years ago for her role in the late financier’s sexual abuse of underage females – and sentenced to 20 years imprisonment.

At the same time, banks that had worked with Epstein, although not accepting fault, agreed to pay substantial sums in settlements to survivors. Donald Trump even made disclosing the Epstein investigative files 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 allegations about social ties between him and Epstein. Congressional promises to release files have stalled, due to partisan maneuvering and delays from federal authorities.

But recent legal actions could provide clarity on Epstein’s activities amid the stalemate – regardless of their result.

Lawsuits Target Major Banks

These lawsuits, submitted by an anonymous plaintiff against Bank of America and the BNY Mellon, allege that these financial powerhouses unlawfully facilitated Epstein’s sex trafficking. The cases are led by Sigrid S McCawley, of a prominent law firm, and Brad Edwards of his legal practice, who have long represented Epstein victims.

“Epstein committed these crimes by means of not only his own extraordinary wealth and influence, but through access to funding and monetary assistance from both individuals and institutions, including BNY,” the legal filing states. “Shockingly, the institution had a plethora of information regarding Epstein’s sex trafficking operation but opted for financial gain over protecting the victims.”

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

Legal Experts Weigh In on Case Challenges

Longtime attorneys who spoke to the matter said establishing liability would be difficult. But they also identified possible outcomes which could offer comfort to plaintiffs or release of previously hidden details.

Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor who founded 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 victims, and I want them to get explanations and legal redress and compensation,” the attorney said. Some claims might be not directly related from a juridical perspective.

“It all comes down to evidence,” Rahmani said. A lawyer would need to prove cause and effect, which would mean “but for the defendant’s conduct, the injury wouldn’t have happened”. In this instance, that would translate to “absent the institution’s involvement, the survivor maybe wouldn’t have been trafficked”, the lawyer 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 legal test. So whatever misconduct there was, if there was any misconduct … the defendant’s misconduct has to have been a key contributor in causing the victim’s suffering.

“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 associations with those accused of wrongdoing can have damaging implications for them.

“It represents a reputational disaster,” he said. If the financial institutions try to get these cases thrown out and are unsuccessful, the attorney expects a swift settlement. “No one wants to go litigate any of the Epstein-related cases.”

Attorney Eric Faddis, a litigator and principal 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 depend, in part, on what the banks knew, if they were informed of alleged abuse or illegal acts”, and in some way provided assistance to Epstein.

“However, even in that case, 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 privy to the particulars of allegations,” the lawyer said. While Epstein’s Florida conviction was known, “there’s no law against for a bank to have a customer who’s an unsavory person”.

“However, it is unlawful for a financial firm to in any way be complicit in the illegal actions of a client, but those two issues are distinct, and so I think that it’s going to be a difficult case against the banks.”

Potential Benefits for Survivors

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

“These cases may uncover additional details about the continuing Epstein story,” Faddis said. “Despite the fact that there have been obstacles erected at every turn for individuals pursuing this data, when there’s a lawsuit, there’s a evidence-gathering phase, and that discovery process often requires disclosure of materials that was not formerly available.”

Edwards said in a comment that the suits could have a deterrent effect and accomplish what lawmakers have been unable to do.

“Legal actions are essential for full accountability for the survivors of Jeffrey Epstein – as well as for potential targets who will suffer from comparable criminal networks – if our banks are not made responsible for the essential role each plays, either in supplying the required framework for the criminal enterprise or identifying the financial component of these offenses and putting an end to it.

He added: “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 sincere intention to create substantial impact and to protect the survivors, who have already endured immense pain.

“We approach these matters without any political agenda and thus cannot be deterred by obstructions, shielding influential figures, or the other shameful political maneuvering you and the rest of the world have had to observe recently.”

Attorney Sigrid McCawley said in a declaration: “While legislators attempt to uncover 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 legal resolution for survivors.”

Institutional Reactions

Asked for comment on the legal complaint, the Bank of New York Mellon said: “The allegations in the case are baseless, and we will strongly contest against it.”

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