🔗 Share this article

For years, victims of Jeffrey Epstein have demanded accountability. For a while, it seemed like they would achieve it.

Epstein’s former associate Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s ex-girlfriend, was found guilty of sex trafficking in a 2021 trial for her role in the late financier’s exploitation of teen girls – and given to 20 years imprisonment.

At the same time, financial firms that had done business with Epstein, although not accepting fault, agreed to pay substantial sums in settlements to survivors. Former President Trump even made releasing the documents related to the Epstein probe part of his campaign platform, and reiterated on his commitment to do so early this year.

Ultimately, Trump’s justice department did not release these files, and his administration has become involved in allegations about social ties between him and Epstein. Congressional promises to release files have lagged, due to political jockeying and justice department foot-dragging.

But two new lawsuits could provide clarity on Epstein’s activities amid the stalemate – irrespective of their result.

Legal Actions Aim at Major Banks

These lawsuits, filed by an unnamed accuser against Bank of America and the BNY Mellon, claim that these financial powerhouses illicitly enabled Epstein’s sex trafficking. The suits are led by Sigrid S McCawley, of Boies Schiller Flexner, 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 power, but through access to funding and monetary assistance from both private parties and organizations, including the bank,” one lawsuit claims. “Egregiously, BNY had a plethora of information regarding Epstein’s trafficking network but opted for financial gain over safeguarding those harmed.”

The complaint against Bank of America mirrors these claims, declaring the institution “knowingly provided the financial support and the appearance of respectability for Epstein and his accomplices to support their global trafficking enterprise under the pretext of legal commercial dealings”. The legal action also said Bank of America neglected to file suspicious activity reports.

Legal Experts Weigh In on Legal Hurdles

Experienced lawyers who spoke to the matter said establishing liability would be challenging. But they also noted possible outcomes which could offer comfort to plaintiffs or disclosure 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.

“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,” the attorney said. Some claims might be not directly related from a juridical perspective.

“The case hinges on proof,” Rahmani said. A attorney would need to prove cause and effect, which would mean “if not for the bank’s actions, the injury wouldn’t have happened”. In this case, that would translate to “absent the institution’s involvement, the survivor maybe wouldn’t have been trafficked”, Rahmani clarified.

An attorney would also have to go further than a basic causation test. “It’s not solely about indirect cause. It also has to be a significant element: that is the legal test. So whatever misconduct there was, if there was any wrongdoing … the defendant’s misconduct has to have been a key contributor in leading to the plaintiff harm.

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

Liability aside, suits like this could put institutions on notice that relationships with those involved in alleged crimes can have damaging implications for them.

“It represents a reputational disaster,” he said. If the banks try to get these cases dismissed and fail, the attorney anticipates a quick resolution. “No party desires to pursue any of the Epstein-related cases.”

Attorney Eric Faddis, a trial attorney and principal of the Colorado law firm his firm and ex-government lawyer, said corporations can be liable. In this scenario, “whether the banks have liability is going to hinge, in part, on what the banks knew, whether they had any knowledge of alleged abuse or illegal acts”, and somehow offered support 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 trafficking operation. The banks would likely not be aware of the particulars of claims,” the lawyer said. While the financier’s prior legal case was known, “it’s not illegal for a financial institution to have a customer who’s an disreputable individual”.

“However, it is unlawful for a financial firm to somehow be involved in the illegal actions of a client, but those two issues are very different, and so I think that it’s going to be a tough lawsuit against the institutions.”

Potential Benefits for Victims

Nevertheless, important aspects of the litigation could assist those affected by Epstein.

“These cases may uncover additional details about the continuing Epstein story,” Faddis said. “Despite the fact that there have been sort of walls put up at every turn for folks seeking this data, when there’s a lawsuit, there’s a evidence-gathering phase, and that discovery process often mandates disclosure of information 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 victims of the financier – as well as for potential targets who will suffer from similar trafficking organizations – if our financial institutions are not made responsible for the crucial part each plays, either in supplying the necessary infrastructure for the criminal enterprise or identifying the financial component of these offenses and putting an end to it.

He added: “We have a far better chance of effecting meaningful change than lawmakers, because we know the details and background of the case and are not motivated by politics but rather by a sincere intention to make a real difference and to protect the victims, who have already suffered tremendously.

“Our handling of these issues without any partisan motives and thus will not be swayed by shutdowns, 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: “As Congress works toward unraveling how Jeffrey Epstein was able to orchestrate his illegal trafficking operation for many years without being caught, we are taking a further significant action forward toward legal resolution for victims.”

Institutional Reactions

When requested for a statement on the legal complaint, the Bank of New York Mellon said: “The claims in the lawsuit are meritless, and we will strongly contest against it.”

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