🔗 Share this article

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

Epstein’s former associate Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s ex-girlfriend, was found guilty of human 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, banks that had worked with Epstein, while not admitting wrongdoing, agreed to pay substantial sums in agreements to survivors. Donald Trump even made disclosing the Epstein investigative files part of his election promises, and reiterated on his promise to do so early this year.

Ultimately, the administration’s Department of Justice 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 lagged, due to political jockeying and justice department foot-dragging.

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

Legal Actions Target Leading Financial Institutions

These lawsuits, filed by an unnamed accuser against Bank of America and the BNY Mellon, claim that these banking giants illicitly enabled Epstein’s trafficking ring. The suits are led by Sigrid S McCawley, of Boies Schiller Flexner, and 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 vast fortune and power, but through access to funding and monetary assistance from both private parties and institutions, including BNY,” one lawsuit states. “Shockingly, the institution had a abundance of knowledge regarding Epstein’s trafficking network but opted for financial gain over safeguarding those harmed.”

The complaint against Bank of America echoes these allegations, asserting the institution “knowingly provided the monetary resources and the veneer of institutional legitimacy for Epstein and his accomplices to fuel their international sex trafficking organization under the pretext of non-criminal business activities”. The suit also said Bank of America neglected to file mandatory financial alerts.

Attorneys Offer Perspectives on Case Challenges

Experienced lawyers who spoke to the situation said establishing liability would be difficult. But they also identified potential results which could provide solace to plaintiffs or release of previously hidden details.

Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor who established a legal firm, said proof 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 obviously I am on the side of the survivors, and I want them to get explanations and legal redress and financial recovery,” Rahmani said. Certain allegations might be too tangential from a legal standpoint.

“The case hinges on proof,” he said. A lawyer would need to prove causation, which would mean “if not for the bank’s actions, the harm wouldn’t have happened”. In this instance, that would translate to “absent the institution’s involvement, the victim maybe wouldn’t have been exploited”, Rahmani clarified.

A lawyer would also have to go beyond a basic causation test. “Is not just ‘but for’ causation. It also has to be a substantial factor: that is the standard. 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.

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

Regardless of legal responsibility, such lawsuits could serve as a warning that associations with those involved in alleged crimes can have negative consequences for them.

“It represents a reputational disaster,” Rahmani noted. If the banks try to get these suits thrown out and are unsuccessful, the attorney anticipates a swift settlement. “No party desires to pursue any of the Epstein-related cases.”

Eric Faddis, a trial attorney and founder of the legal practice Varner Faddis and ex-government lawyer, said companies can be liable. In this scenario, “if the institutions bear fault is going to depend, in part, on what the banks knew, whether they had any knowledge 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 hard to effectively connect the banks into some kind of trafficking operation. The banks would likely not be aware of the particulars of claims,” Faddis said. While Epstein’s Florida conviction was public, “it’s not illegal for a bank to have a customer who’s an unsavory person”.

“However, it is unlawful for a bank to in any way be involved 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.”

Possible Advantages for Survivors

That said, important aspects of the legal proceedings could assist those affected by Epstein.

“The lawsuits have the potential to reveal more information about the continuing Epstein story,” the attorney said. “Even though there have been sort of walls put up 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 mandates release of information that was not previously public.”

Edwards said in a statement that the lawsuits could have a preventive impact and accomplish what lawmakers have failed to do.

“Legal actions are essential for full accountability for the survivors of the financier – as well as for potential targets who will be harmed from similar trafficking organizations – if our financial institutions are not held accountable for the crucial part each performs, either in supplying the required framework for the criminal enterprise or recognizing the monetary aspect of these offenses and putting an end to it.

He added: “We have a far better chance of making a real difference than Congress, because we understand the facts and background of the matter and are not driven by politics but rather by a genuine desire 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 statement: “While legislators attempt to uncover how Jeffrey Epstein was able to orchestrate his criminal sex-trafficking enterprise for many years without detection, we are taking a further significant action forward toward justice for victims.”

Bank Responses

When requested for a statement on the legal complaint, BNY said: “The claims in the lawsuit are meritless, and we will vigorously defend against it.”

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