🔗 Share this article

For years, victims of Jeffrey Epstein have demanded justice. For a while, it appeared like they would get it.

Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s ex-girlfriend, was convicted of sex trafficking four years ago for her role in the deceased billionaire’s sexual abuse of teen girls – and given to two decades behind bars.

Meanwhile, banks that had worked with Epstein, while not accepting fault, agreed to pay hundreds of millions in settlements to victims. Former President 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 files, and his administration has become involved in allegations about social ties between him and Epstein. Congressional promises to disclose documents have stalled, due to political jockeying and justice department foot-dragging.

However two new lawsuits could shed light on Epstein’s operations amid the stalemate – regardless of their outcome.

Lawsuits Aim at Leading Financial Institutions

The legal complaints, filed by an anonymous plaintiff against Bank of America and the Bank of New York Mellon (BNY), claim that these financial powerhouses illicitly enabled Epstein’s trafficking ring. The suits are helmed by attorney Sigrid McCawley, of Boies Schiller Flexner, and Brad Edwards of his legal practice, who have long represented survivors of Epstein’s abuse.

“The financier carried out these offenses by means of not only his own extraordinary wealth and power, but through access to funding and financial support from both private parties and organizations, including BNY,” the legal filing claims. “Egregiously, the institution had a abundance of knowledge regarding Epstein’s sex trafficking operation but opted for financial gain over safeguarding those harmed.”

The Bank of America suit mirrors these claims, asserting the institution “deliberately supplied the monetary resources and the veneer of institutional legitimacy for Epstein and his accomplices to fuel their global trafficking enterprise under the pretext of non-criminal business activities”. The legal action also said the bank neglected to file mandatory financial alerts.

Attorneys Weigh In on Legal Hurdles

Longtime attorneys who spoke to the matter said proving such a case would be challenging. But they also noted possible outcomes which could offer comfort to plaintiffs or release of long-sought information.

Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor who established 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 obviously I am on the side of the victims, and I want them to get explanations and legal redress and compensation,” Rahmani said. Some claims might be not directly related from a legal standpoint.

“The case hinges on proof,” he 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 occurred”. In this case, that would boil down to “absent the institution’s involvement, the survivor maybe wouldn’t have been exploited”, Rahmani clarified.

A lawyer would also have to go further than a “but for” measure. “Is not just ‘but for’ causation. It also has to be a substantial factor: that is the standard. So any improper behavior 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 substantial factor? I don’t know.”

Liability aside, suits like this could serve as a warning that relationships with those involved in alleged crimes can have negative consequences for them.

“It’s a PR nightmare,” he said. If the financial institutions try to get these suits dismissed and fail, the attorney 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 legal practice his firm and ex-government lawyer, said companies can be liable. 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 offered support to Epstein.

“But even then, I think it’s going to be hard to sort of loop the financial entities into some kind of sex-trafficking scheme. The banks would likely not be aware of the particulars of allegations,” Faddis said. While the financier’s prior legal case was public, “it’s not illegal for a financial institution to have a customer who’s an disreputable individual”.

“However, it is unlawful for a bank to in any way be complicit in the criminal activity of a customer, but those two issues are very different, and so I think that it’s going to be a tough lawsuit against the banks.”

Potential Benefits for Survivors

Nevertheless, 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,” Faddis said. “Even though there have been sort of walls put up at every turn for individuals seeking this information, when there’s a legal action, there’s a discovery process, and that legal procedure often requires release of materials that was not formerly available.”

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

“Legal actions are essential for full accountability for the survivors of Jeffrey Epstein – as well as for potential targets who will be harmed from comparable criminal networks – if our financial institutions are not held accountable for the crucial part each performs, either in supplying the necessary infrastructure for the illegal operation or identifying the financial component of these crimes and putting an end to it.

Edwards continued: “Our prospects are significantly higher of effecting meaningful change than lawmakers, because we understand the details and history of the case and are not motivated by partisan interests 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 shutdowns, protecting wealthy politically connected individuals, 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: “As Congress works toward unraveling how Jeffrey Epstein was able to conduct his criminal sex-trafficking enterprise for many years without detection, we are taking another important step forward toward justice for victims.”

Bank Responses

Asked for comment on the lawsuit, 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 intend to firmly protect our interests in this case.”