🔗 Share this article

Over many years, survivors of Jeffrey Epstein have sought accountability. At one point, it seemed like they would get it.

Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s ex-girlfriend, was found guilty of sex trafficking four years ago for her involvement in the deceased billionaire’s exploitation of teen girls – and given to 20 years imprisonment.

Meanwhile, financial firms that had done business with Epstein, although not admitting wrongdoing, paid hundreds of millions in agreements to victims. Former President Trump even made releasing 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, Trump’s justice department did not make public these files, and his administration has become involved in allegations about personal connections between him and Epstein. Assurances from lawmakers to release files have stalled, due to partisan maneuvering and justice department foot-dragging.

However two new lawsuits could provide clarity on Epstein’s activities amid the deadlock – irrespective of their outcome.

Legal Actions Aim at Leading Financial Institutions

These lawsuits, filed by an unnamed accuser against a major U.S. bank and the Bank of New York Mellon (BNY), allege that these banking giants illicitly enabled Epstein’s sex trafficking. The cases are led by Sigrid S McCawley, of Boies Schiller Flexner, 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 extraordinary wealth and influence, but through access to funding and financial support from both individuals and organizations, including BNY,” the legal filing claims. “Shockingly, the institution had a plethora of information regarding Epstein’s sex trafficking operation but opted for financial gain over protecting the victims.”

The complaint against Bank of America echoes these allegations, asserting the institution “deliberately supplied the monetary resources and the appearance of respectability for Epstein and his accomplices to support their global trafficking enterprise under the guise of non-criminal business activities”. The suit also said Bank of America failed to file mandatory financial alerts.

Legal Experts Offer Perspectives on Legal Hurdles

Experienced lawyers who spoke to the situation said establishing liability would be challenging. But they also identified possible outcomes which could offer comfort to accusers or disclosure of long-sought information.

Attorney Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor who founded a legal firm, said evidence has to show that an bank’s conduct led to 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 criminal justice and compensation,” the attorney said. Some claims might be not directly related from a juridical perspective.

“The case hinges on proof,” he said. A attorney would need to prove causation, which would mean “if not for the bank’s actions, the injury wouldn’t have occurred”. In this instance, that would boil down to “but for the bank’s conduct, the victim maybe wouldn’t have been trafficked”, the lawyer clarified.

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 substantial factor: that is the legal test. So any improper behavior there was, if there was any misconduct … the bank’s actions has to have been a key contributor in causing the victim’s suffering.

“Through maintaining financial ties to Epstein, is that a decisive element? I don’t know.”

Regardless of legal responsibility, suits like this could serve as a warning that associations with those accused of wrongdoing can have negative consequences 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 litigator and founder of the legal practice his firm and ex-government lawyer, 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 provided assistance to Epstein.

“However, even in that case, I think it’s going to be difficult to sort of loop the banks into some kind of sex-trafficking scheme. The banks would probably not be aware of the details of allegations,” Faddis said. While Epstein’s Florida conviction was public, “there’s no law against for a bank to have a client who’s an disreputable individual”.

“It is illegal for a bank to in any way be complicit in the illegal actions of a customer, but these aspects are very different, and so I think that it’s going to be a tough lawsuit against the banks.”

Potential Benefits for Victims

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

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

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

“Legal actions are essential for full accountability for the victims of the financier – as well as for potential targets who will be harmed from comparable criminal networks – if our banks are not held accountable for the essential role each performs, either in providing the required framework for the criminal enterprise or recognizing the monetary aspect of these offenses and putting an end to it.

He added: “Our prospects are significantly higher of making a real difference than Congress, because we understand the facts and history of the matter 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 cannot be deterred 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.”

Attorney Sigrid McCawley said in a declaration: “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 legal resolution for survivors.”

Institutional Reactions

When requested for a statement on the legal complaint, 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 case.”