🔗 Share this article

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

Ghislaine Maxwell, the financier’s one-time partner, was found guilty of sex trafficking four years ago for her involvement in the deceased billionaire’s exploitation of underage females – and given to 20 years imprisonment.

At the same time, financial firms that had done business with Epstein, while not admitting wrongdoing, paid substantial sums in agreements to survivors. Former President Trump even made releasing 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 embroiled in allegations about social ties between him and Epstein. Congressional promises to release files have stalled, due to political jockeying and delays from federal authorities.

However recent legal actions could shed light on Epstein’s operations amid the deadlock – regardless of their outcome.

Lawsuits 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), allege that these banking giants unlawfully facilitated Epstein’s sex trafficking. The suits are led 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 vast fortune and influence, but through financial backing and financial support from both private parties and organizations, including BNY,” one lawsuit claims. “Shockingly, BNY had a abundance of knowledge regarding Epstein’s trafficking network but chose profit over protecting the victims.”

The complaint against Bank of America mirrors these claims, declaring the institution “knowingly provided the monetary resources and the veneer of institutional legitimacy for Epstein and his co-conspirators to support their global trafficking enterprise under the guise of legal commercial dealings”. The suit also said the bank failed to file suspicious activity reports.

Attorneys Weigh In on Legal Hurdles

Longtime attorneys who commented on the situation said establishing liability would be challenging. But they also identified possible outcomes which could offer comfort to plaintiffs or release of long-sought information.

Attorney Neama Rahmani, a ex-government lawyer who established West Coast Trial lawyers, 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 victims, and I want them to get explanations and legal redress and financial recovery,” the attorney said. Some claims 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 happened”. In this case, that would boil down to “but for the bank’s conduct, the survivor maybe wouldn’t have been exploited”, Rahmani explained.

An attorney would also have to go beyond a “but for” measure. “It’s not solely about indirect cause. 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 substantial factor in causing the plaintiff harm.

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

Regardless of legal responsibility, such lawsuits could put institutions on notice that relationships with those involved in alleged crimes can have damaging implications for them.

“It represents a reputational disaster,” Rahmani noted. If the financial institutions try to get these cases dismissed and fail, Rahmani expects a quick resolution. “No party desires to pursue any of the Epstein-related cases.”

Attorney Eric Faddis, a litigator and founder of the Colorado law firm his firm and former prosecutor, said companies can be responsible. In this situation, “if the institutions bear fault is going to depend, in part, on their level of awareness, whether they had any knowledge of alleged abuse or illegal acts”, and in some way offered support to Epstein.

“But even then, I think it’s going to be hard to sort of loop the banks into some kind of sex-trafficking scheme. The institutions would probably not be aware of the details of claims,” Faddis said. While the financier’s prior legal case was known, “there’s no law against for a financial institution to have a customer who’s an unsavory person”.

“However, it is unlawful for a financial firm to somehow 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 tough lawsuit against the institutions.”

Possible Advantages for Survivors

Nevertheless, important aspects of the litigation could help Epstein survivors.

“These cases may uncover additional details about the ongoing Epstein saga,” the attorney said. “Even though there have been obstacles erected at every turn for folks pursuing this data, when there’s a legal action, there’s a discovery process, and that legal procedure often requires release of materials that was not previously public.”

Attorney Brad Edwards said in a comment that the suits could have a deterrent effect and accomplish what legislators have been unable to do.

“The lawsuits are necessary for complete justice for the survivors of the financier – as well as for future would-be victims who will suffer from comparable criminal networks – if our financial institutions are not held accountable for the crucial part each plays, either in supplying the necessary infrastructure for the illegal operation 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 lawmakers, because we know the facts and background of the case and are not driven by politics but rather by a genuine desire to create substantial impact and to safeguard the victims, who have already suffered tremendously.

“We approach these matters without any political agenda and thus will not be swayed by shutdowns, shielding influential figures, or the other shameful political maneuvering you and the rest of the world have had to observe recently.”

McCawley said in a statement: “While legislators attempt to uncover how the financier was able to orchestrate his illegal trafficking operation 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 legal complaint, the Bank of New York Mellon said: “The allegations in the case are baseless, and we will strongly contest against it.”

Bank of America’s statement likewise stated: “We intend to firmly protect our interests in this matter.”