🔗 Share this article

For years, victims of the late financier Jeffrey Epstein have sought justice. At one point, it appeared like they would achieve it.

Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s ex-girlfriend, was convicted of human trafficking four years ago for her involvement in the late financier’s exploitation of underage females – and sentenced to two decades behind bars.

Meanwhile, banks that had worked with Epstein, although not admitting wrongdoing, agreed to pay substantial sums in agreements to survivors. Donald Trump even made disclosing the documents related to the Epstein probe part of his campaign platform, and reiterated on his commitment to do so in recent months.

In the end, the administration’s Department of Justice did not release these files, and his government has become involved in allegations about social ties between him and Epstein. Assurances from lawmakers to release files have lagged, due to political jockeying and justice department foot-dragging.

However two new lawsuits could shed light on Epstein’s activities amid the deadlock – irrespective of their result.

Legal Actions Target Major Banks

These lawsuits, filed by an unnamed accuser against a major U.S. bank and the BNY Mellon, claim that these banking giants illicitly enabled Epstein’s sex trafficking. The suits are helmed by Sigrid S McCawley, of Boies Schiller Flexner, and lawyer Brad Edwards of Edwards Henderson, 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 financial backing and monetary assistance from both individuals and institutions, including the bank,” the legal filing states. “Shockingly, the institution had a abundance of knowledge regarding Epstein’s sex trafficking operation but opted for financial gain over protecting the victims.”

The Bank of America suit mirrors these claims, declaring the institution “deliberately supplied the financial support and the appearance of respectability for Epstein and his co-conspirators to support their international sex trafficking organization under the guise of non-criminal business activities”. The suit also said Bank of America neglected to file suspicious activity reports.

Legal Experts Weigh In on Case Challenges

Experienced lawyers who spoke to the situation said proving such a case would be difficult. But they also noted potential results which could offer comfort to plaintiffs or disclosure of long-sought information.

Attorney Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor who founded a legal firm, said proof has to show that an bank’s conduct resulted in harm.

“I don’t think the lawsuit has much of a chance of success – and obviously I am on the side of the survivors, 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,” he said. A lawyer would need to prove causation, which would mean “if not for the bank’s actions, 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 exploited”, Rahmani explained.

An attorney would also have to go beyond a basic causation test. “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 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 associations with those involved in alleged crimes can have damaging implications for them.

“It’s a PR nightmare,” he said. If the financial institutions try to get these suits thrown out and are unsuccessful, Rahmani expects a swift settlement. “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 his firm and ex-government lawyer, said companies can be responsible. 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 claimed misconduct or illegal acts”, and somehow provided assistance to Epstein.

“However, even in that case, I think it’s going to be difficult to effectively connect the banks into some kind of sex-trafficking scheme. The banks would probably not be aware of the particulars of claims,” Faddis said. While Epstein’s Florida conviction was public, “it’s not illegal for a financial institution to have a client who’s an unsavory person”.

“However, it is unlawful for a bank to somehow be involved in the illegal actions of a customer, but these aspects are distinct, and so I think that it’s going to be a difficult case against the banks.”

Potential Benefits for Victims

Nevertheless, important aspects of the legal proceedings could help those affected by Epstein.

“The lawsuits have the potential to reveal more information about the continuing Epstein story,” Faddis said. “Despite the fact that there have been obstacles erected at every turn for individuals seeking this information, when there’s a legal action, there’s a discovery process, and that legal procedure often mandates disclosure of information that was not previously public.”

Attorney Brad Edwards said in a comment that the lawsuits could have a deterrent effect and achieve 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 be harmed from comparable criminal networks – if our banks are not held accountable for the crucial part each performs, either in providing the required framework for the criminal enterprise or recognizing the monetary aspect of these crimes and putting an end to it.

He added: “Our prospects are significantly higher of effecting meaningful change than lawmakers, because we know the details and history of the matter and are not driven by politics but rather by a sincere intention to create substantial impact 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 obstructions, shielding influential figures, or the other shameful political maneuvering you and the rest of the world have had to watch unfold recently.”

Attorney Sigrid McCawley said in a statement: “While legislators attempt to uncover how Jeffrey Epstein was able to orchestrate his criminal sex-trafficking enterprise for many years without being caught, we are taking a further significant action forward toward legal resolution for survivors.”

Institutional Reactions

Asked for comment on the lawsuit, BNY said: “The claims in the lawsuit are meritless, and we will vigorously defend against it.”

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