🔗 Share this article

For years, survivors of Jeffrey Epstein have demanded justice. At one point, it appeared like they would achieve it.

Epstein’s former associate Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s ex-girlfriend, was convicted of human trafficking in a 2021 trial for her role in the deceased billionaire’s sexual abuse of teen girls – and sentenced to 20 years imprisonment.

Meanwhile, banks that had done business with Epstein, while not accepting fault, agreed to pay substantial sums in agreements to victims. Donald Trump even made disclosing the documents related to the Epstein probe part of his election promises, and doubled down on his commitment to do so in recent months.

In the end, the administration’s Department of Justice did not make public 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 partisan maneuvering and delays from federal authorities.

But recent legal actions could provide clarity on Epstein’s activities amid the deadlock – irrespective of their outcome.

Legal Actions Aim at Major Banks

These lawsuits, filed by an anonymous plaintiff against Bank of America and the Bank of New York Mellon (BNY), claim that these financial powerhouses unlawfully facilitated Epstein’s trafficking ring. The suits are helmed by attorney Sigrid McCawley, of Boies Schiller Flexner, and lawyer Brad Edwards of his legal practice, who have consistently advocated for survivors of Epstein’s abuse.

“Epstein committed these crimes by means of not only his own extraordinary wealth and influence, but through financial backing and monetary assistance from both individuals and institutions, including the bank,” one lawsuit claims. “Shockingly, BNY had a plethora of information regarding Epstein’s sex trafficking operation but chose profit over protecting the victims.”

The complaint against Bank of America echoes these allegations, declaring the institution “deliberately supplied the financial support and the appearance of respectability for Epstein and his co-conspirators to fuel their international sex trafficking organization under the pretext of legal commercial dealings”. The suit also said Bank of America neglected to file mandatory financial alerts.

Attorneys Offer Perspectives on Case Challenges

Longtime attorneys who commented on the matter said establishing liability would be challenging. But they also identified possible outcomes which could provide solace to plaintiffs or disclosure of previously hidden details.

Attorney Neama Rahmani, a ex-government lawyer who established West Coast Trial lawyers, said proof has to show that an institution’s actions 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 compensation,” Rahmani said. Certain allegations might be not directly related from a legal standpoint.

“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 happened”. In this case, 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 whatever misconduct there was, if there was any wrongdoing … the defendant’s misconduct has to have been a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff harm.

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

Liability aside, such lawsuits could serve as a warning that associations with those accused of wrongdoing can have damaging implications for them.

“It’s a PR nightmare,” he said. If the financial institutions try to get these suits dismissed and fail, Rahmani anticipates a swift settlement. “No one wants to go litigate any of the legal matters tied to Epstein.”

Eric Faddis, a trial attorney and founder of the Colorado law firm his firm and former prosecutor, said companies can be responsible. In this situation, “whether the banks have liability is going to depend, 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 institutions would likely not be privy to the details of claims,” Faddis said. While the financier’s prior legal case was public, “there’s no law against for a bank to have a customer who’s an unsavory person”.

“It is illegal for a financial firm to in any way 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 banks.”

Possible Advantages for Victims

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

“These cases may uncover additional details about the ongoing Epstein saga,” Faddis said. “Despite the fact that there have been obstacles erected at every turn for individuals pursuing this information, when there’s a legal action, there’s a discovery process, and that legal procedure often requires disclosure of information that was not previously public.”

Edwards said in a statement that the suits could have a preventive impact 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 future would-be victims who will be harmed from comparable criminal networks – if our banks are not held accountable for the essential role each plays, either in supplying the necessary infrastructure for the criminal enterprise or identifying the monetary aspect of these crimes and stopping it.

He added: “We have a far better chance of effecting meaningful change than Congress, because we know the details and background of the case and are not motivated by partisan interests but rather by a genuine desire to make a real difference and to safeguard the survivors, who have already suffered tremendously.

“We approach these matters without any political agenda and thus cannot be deterred 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: “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 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 similarly remarked: “We will vigorously defend ourselves in this case.”