🔗 Share this article

Over many years, victims of the late financier Jeffrey Epstein have sought accountability. At one point, it seemed like they would achieve it.

Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s ex-girlfriend, was convicted of human trafficking in a 2021 trial for her role in the deceased billionaire’s exploitation of underage females – and given to 20 years imprisonment.

Meanwhile, banks that had worked with Epstein, while not admitting wrongdoing, agreed to pay substantial sums in settlements to victims. Donald Trump even made releasing the documents related to the Epstein probe 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 records, and his administration has become involved in allegations about social ties between him and Epstein. Assurances from lawmakers to disclose documents have stalled, due to partisan maneuvering and delays from federal authorities.

But two new lawsuits could shed light on Epstein’s operations amid the deadlock – regardless of their result.

Lawsuits Target Major Banks

The legal complaints, filed by an unnamed accuser against Bank of America and the BNY Mellon, claim that these financial powerhouses unlawfully facilitated Epstein’s sex trafficking. The suits are helmed by attorney Sigrid 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 financial support from both individuals and institutions, including the bank,” the legal filing states. “Shockingly, BNY had a abundance of knowledge regarding Epstein’s sex trafficking operation but opted for financial gain over safeguarding those harmed.”

The complaint against Bank of America echoes these allegations, declaring the institution “deliberately supplied the financial support 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 legal action also said the bank failed to file mandatory financial alerts.

Legal Experts Offer Perspectives on Case Challenges

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

Attorney Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor who established West Coast Trial lawyers, said evidence has to show that an institution’s actions led to harm.

“In my view, the case faces significant obstacles – and clearly I am on the side of the victims, and I want them to get explanations and criminal justice and compensation,” Rahmani said. Some claims might be not directly related from a legal standpoint.

“The case hinges on proof,” he said. A attorney would need to prove causation, which would mean “but for the defendant’s conduct, the injury wouldn’t have occurred”. In this instance, that would translate to “absent the institution’s involvement, the survivor maybe wouldn’t have been trafficked”, Rahmani explained.

An attorney would also have to go beyond a basic causation test. “Is not just ‘but for’ causation. It also has to be a significant element: 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 substantial factor in leading to the plaintiff harm.

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

Regardless of legal responsibility, suits like this could put institutions on notice that associations with those accused of wrongdoing can have damaging implications for them.

“It represents a reputational disaster,” Rahmani noted. If the banks try to get these suits thrown out and are unsuccessful, Rahmani anticipates a swift settlement. “No one wants to go litigate any of the legal matters tied to Epstein.”

Eric Faddis, a litigator and founder of the legal practice his firm and former prosecutor, said corporations can be responsible. In this situation, “whether the banks have liability is going to hinge, in part, on their level of awareness, 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 difficult to sort of loop the banks into some kind of trafficking operation. The institutions would probably not be privy to the details of allegations,” Faddis said. While the financier’s prior legal case was public, “there’s no law against for a financial institution to have a client who’s an unsavory person”.

“However, it is unlawful for a financial firm to somehow be involved in the criminal activity of a customer, but these aspects are distinct, and so I think that it’s going to be a difficult case against the institutions.”

Potential Benefits for Survivors

That said, important aspects of the litigation could help those affected by Epstein.

“The lawsuits have the potential to reveal more information about the ongoing Epstein saga,” the attorney said. “Even though there have been obstacles erected at every turn for folks pursuing this information, when there’s a legal action, there’s a evidence-gathering phase, and that legal procedure often requires disclosure of materials that was not formerly available.”

Edwards said in a statement that the lawsuits could have a deterrent effect and accomplish what legislators have been unable to do.

“The lawsuits are necessary for complete justice for the victims of Jeffrey Epstein – as well as for future would-be victims who will be harmed from similar trafficking organizations – if our banks are not made responsible for the essential role each plays, either in providing the necessary infrastructure for the illegal operation or identifying the monetary aspect of these offenses and putting an end to it.

Edwards continued: “We have a far better chance of effecting meaningful change than Congress, because we know the facts and history of the case and are not motivated by partisan interests but rather by a sincere intention to create substantial impact and to safeguard the victims, who have already endured immense pain.

“We approach these matters without any partisan motives and thus cannot be deterred by shutdowns, shielding influential figures, or the other embarrassing partisan gamesmanship you and the rest of the world have had to observe recently.”

McCawley said in a declaration: “While legislators attempt to uncover how Jeffrey Epstein was able to conduct his criminal sex-trafficking enterprise for decades without detection, we are taking another important step forward toward legal resolution for survivors.”

Bank Responses

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

The bank’s response similarly remarked: “We intend to firmly protect our interests in this matter.”