🔗 Share this article

For years, victims of the late financier Jeffrey Epstein have sought accountability. For a while, it appeared like they would get it.

Epstein’s former associate Ghislaine Maxwell, the financier’s one-time partner, was convicted of sex trafficking in a 2021 trial for her role in the deceased billionaire’s sexual abuse 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, agreed to pay substantial sums in agreements to victims. Former President Trump even made releasing the Epstein investigative files part of his campaign platform, and reiterated on his promise to do so in recent months.

In the end, Trump’s justice department did not release these records, and his government has become involved in reports about personal connections between him and Epstein. Assurances from lawmakers to release files have stalled, due to political jockeying and justice department foot-dragging.

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

Lawsuits Target 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 unlawfully facilitated Epstein’s sex trafficking. The cases are led by attorney Sigrid McCawley, of a prominent law firm, and lawyer Brad Edwards of his legal practice, who have consistently advocated for Epstein victims.

“Epstein committed these crimes by means of not only his own extraordinary wealth and influence, but through access to funding and financial support from both private parties and institutions, including BNY,” one lawsuit claims. “Shockingly, the institution had a plethora of information regarding Epstein’s trafficking network but chose profit over safeguarding those harmed.”

The Bank of America suit mirrors these claims, asserting the institution “knowingly provided the monetary resources and the appearance of respectability for Epstein and his accomplices to fuel their global trafficking enterprise under the guise of legal commercial dealings”. The legal action also said the bank neglected to file suspicious activity reports.

Legal Experts Offer Perspectives on Case Challenges

Experienced lawyers who commented on the situation said proving such a case would be difficult. But they also noted possible outcomes which could provide solace to plaintiffs or disclosure of long-sought information.

Attorney Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor who founded West Coast Trial lawyers, said proof has to show that an institution’s actions resulted in 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 answers and criminal justice and compensation,” Rahmani said. Some claims might be too tangential from a legal standpoint.

“The case hinges on proof,” Rahmani said. A attorney would need to prove cause and effect, which would mean “but for the defendant’s conduct, the injury wouldn’t have occurred”. In this instance, that would boil down to “but for the bank’s conduct, the survivor maybe wouldn’t have been trafficked”, the lawyer clarified.

A lawyer would also have to go beyond a basic causation test. “It’s not solely about indirect cause. It also has to be a substantial factor: that is the standard. So any improper behavior there was, if there was any wrongdoing … the bank’s actions has to have been a key contributor in causing the plaintiff harm.

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

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

“It’s a PR nightmare,” he said. If the financial institutions try to get these cases thrown out and are unsuccessful, Rahmani expects a swift settlement. “No party desires to pursue any of the Epstein-related cases.”

Attorney Eric Faddis, a trial attorney and principal of the legal practice Varner Faddis and ex-government lawyer, said companies can be responsible. In this scenario, “if the institutions bear fault is going to hinge, in part, on what the banks knew, if they were informed of claimed misconduct 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 effectively connect the financial entities into some kind of trafficking operation. The banks would probably not be privy to 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”.

“It is illegal for a financial firm to somehow be involved in the criminal activity of a client, but these aspects are very different, and so I think that it’s going to be a difficult case against the institutions.”

Possible Advantages for Victims

That said, key elements of the litigation could assist Epstein survivors.

“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 pursuing this information, when there’s a lawsuit, there’s a evidence-gathering phase, and that legal procedure often requires disclosure of information that was not formerly available.”

Edwards said in a statement that the lawsuits could have a preventive impact 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 potential targets who will be harmed from similar trafficking organizations – if our banks are not made responsible for the crucial part each plays, either in supplying the necessary infrastructure for the criminal enterprise or recognizing the monetary aspect of these crimes and putting an end to it.

He added: “We have a far better chance of effecting meaningful change than lawmakers, because we understand the facts and history of the matter and are not driven by politics but rather by a sincere intention to make a real difference and to safeguard the victims, who have already suffered tremendously.

“Our handling of these issues without any political agenda 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 observe recently.”

Attorney Sigrid McCawley said in a statement: “While legislators attempt to uncover how the financier was able to conduct his criminal sex-trafficking enterprise for many years without being caught, we are taking another important step forward toward legal resolution for survivors.”

Bank Responses

When requested for a statement on the lawsuit, the Bank of New York Mellon said: “The allegations in the case are baseless, and we will strongly contest against it.”

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