🔗 Share this article

Over many 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 human trafficking in a 2021 trial for her involvement in the late financier’s sexual abuse of underage females – and sentenced to two decades behind bars.

Meanwhile, financial firms that had worked with Epstein, although not admitting wrongdoing, paid substantial sums in agreements to victims. Former President Trump even made disclosing the documents related to the Epstein probe part of his election promises, and reiterated on his promise to do so early this year.

Ultimately, Trump’s justice department 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 lagged, due to partisan maneuvering and delays from federal authorities.

But 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 unnamed accuser against a major U.S. bank and the BNY Mellon, claim that these banking giants illicitly enabled Epstein’s trafficking ring. The suits are led by Sigrid S McCawley, of Boies Schiller Flexner, and Brad Edwards of Edwards Henderson, who have long represented Epstein victims.

“The financier carried out these offenses by means of not only his own vast fortune and power, but through access to funding and financial support from both individuals and institutions, including BNY,” the legal filing claims. “Shockingly, the institution had a abundance of knowledge regarding Epstein’s trafficking network but opted for financial gain over safeguarding those harmed.”

The Bank of America suit echoes these allegations, asserting the institution “knowingly provided the monetary resources and the appearance of respectability for Epstein and his accomplices to fuel their international sex trafficking organization under the guise of non-criminal business activities”. The suit also said Bank of America neglected to file mandatory financial alerts.

Legal Experts Weigh In on Case Challenges

Longtime attorneys who commented on the matter said proving such a case would be difficult. But they also noted potential results which could provide solace to accusers or disclosure of previously hidden details.

Attorney Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor who founded a legal firm, said evidence has to show that an institution’s actions resulted in harm.

“I don’t think the lawsuit has much of a chance of success – and clearly I am on the side of the survivors, and I want them to get explanations and legal redress and compensation,” Rahmani said. Some claims might be not directly related from a juridical perspective.

“It all comes down to evidence,” he said. A attorney would need to prove cause and effect, which would mean “if not for the bank’s actions, the harm wouldn’t have happened”. In this case, that would translate to “but for the bank’s conduct, the victim maybe wouldn’t have been trafficked”, Rahmani explained.

An attorney would also have to go further than 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 wrongdoing … the bank’s actions has to have been a substantial factor in leading to the plaintiff harm.

“Through maintaining financial ties to 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 negative consequences for them.

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

Eric Faddis, a litigator and founder of the Colorado law firm 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 alleged abuse or criminal wrongdoing”, and in some way offered support 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 probably not be privy to the details of allegations,” the lawyer said. While the financier’s prior legal case was known, “it’s not illegal for a bank to have a client who’s an disreputable individual”.

“It is illegal for a financial firm to in any way be involved in the illegal actions of a customer, but those two issues are distinct, 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 assist 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 obstacles erected at every turn for individuals pursuing this data, when there’s a legal action, there’s a evidence-gathering phase, and that legal procedure often mandates disclosure of materials that was not formerly available.”

Attorney Brad Edwards said in a comment that the suits could have a deterrent effect and achieve what legislators have been unable 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 suffer from similar trafficking organizations – if our banks are not made responsible for the crucial part each plays, either in providing the necessary infrastructure for the criminal enterprise or recognizing the financial component of these offenses and putting an end to it.

He added: “Our prospects are significantly higher of making a real difference than lawmakers, because we know the facts and history of the case and are not driven by partisan interests but rather by a sincere intention to create substantial impact and to protect the survivors, who have already endured immense pain.

“We approach these matters 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 illegal trafficking operation for many years without being caught, we are taking another important step forward toward legal resolution for victims.”

Institutional Reactions

When requested for a statement on the legal complaint, BNY said: “The allegations in the case are baseless, and we will vigorously defend against it.”

Bank of America’s statement similarly remarked: “We will vigorously defend ourselves in this case.”