🔗 Share this article

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

Epstein’s former associate Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s ex-girlfriend, was convicted of sex trafficking in a 2021 trial for her involvement in the late financier’s exploitation of teen girls – and given to 20 years imprisonment.

Meanwhile, banks that had worked with Epstein, while not admitting wrongdoing, paid substantial sums in agreements to victims. Donald Trump even made disclosing the documents related to the Epstein probe part of his election promises, and doubled down on his promise to do so early this year.

Ultimately, Trump’s justice department did not make public these records, and his government has become embroiled in reports about social ties between him and Epstein. Congressional promises to disclose documents have lagged, due to partisan maneuvering and delays from federal authorities.

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

Legal Actions Aim at Leading Financial Institutions

The legal complaints, submitted by an anonymous plaintiff against a major U.S. bank and the Bank of New York Mellon (BNY), claim that these banking giants illicitly enabled Epstein’s sex trafficking. 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.

“The financier carried out these offenses by means of not only his own vast fortune and power, but through financial backing and financial support from both individuals and institutions, including BNY,” one lawsuit states. “Shockingly, the institution had a abundance of knowledge regarding Epstein’s trafficking network but chose profit over safeguarding those harmed.”

The complaint against Bank of America mirrors these claims, asserting the institution “knowingly provided the financial support and the appearance of respectability for Epstein and his co-conspirators to support their global trafficking enterprise under the guise of non-criminal business activities”. The suit also said the bank failed to file suspicious activity reports.

Attorneys Weigh In on Legal Hurdles

Experienced lawyers who commented on the situation said establishing liability would be challenging. But they also identified possible outcomes which could provide solace to accusers or release of previously hidden details.

Attorney Neama Rahmani, a ex-government lawyer who founded a legal firm, said proof has to show that an institution’s actions led to 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,” the attorney said. Certain allegations might be too tangential from a juridical perspective.

“It all comes down to evidence,” 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 case, that would boil down to “absent the institution’s involvement, the victim maybe wouldn’t have been exploited”, the lawyer explained.

An attorney 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 substantial factor in causing the plaintiff harm.

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

Liability aside, suits like this could serve as a warning that relationships with those accused of wrongdoing can have negative consequences for them.

“It represents a reputational disaster,” Rahmani noted. If the banks try to get these cases thrown out and fail, Rahmani anticipates a quick resolution. “No party desires to pursue any of the legal matters tied to Epstein.”

Eric Faddis, a trial attorney and principal of the legal practice his firm and ex-government lawyer, said corporations can be responsible. In this scenario, “whether the banks have liability is going to depend, in part, on their level of awareness, whether they had any knowledge of claimed misconduct or criminal wrongdoing”, and somehow provided assistance to Epstein.

“But even then, I think it’s going to be difficult to effectively connect the financial entities into some kind of trafficking operation. The institutions would likely not be aware of the particulars of claims,” Faddis said. While the financier’s prior legal case was known, “it’s not illegal for a financial institution to have a client who’s an disreputable individual”.

“It is illegal for a bank to somehow be involved 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.”

Possible Advantages for Victims

That said, key elements 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 pursuing this data, when there’s a lawsuit, there’s a discovery process, and that discovery process often mandates disclosure of information that was not formerly available.”

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 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 held accountable for the essential role each performs, either in providing the required framework for the illegal operation or identifying the monetary aspect of these crimes and stopping it.

He added: “We have a far better chance of effecting meaningful change than Congress, because we know the facts and background of the case and are not driven 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 political agenda and thus cannot be deterred by obstructions, shielding influential figures, 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 the financier was able to orchestrate his criminal sex-trafficking enterprise for decades without detection, we are taking another important step forward toward legal resolution 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.”

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