🔗 Share this article

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

Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s ex-girlfriend, was found guilty of human trafficking four years ago for her role in the late financier’s sexual abuse of underage females – and given to two decades behind bars.

Meanwhile, financial firms that had done business with Epstein, although not admitting wrongdoing, agreed to pay hundreds of millions in agreements to victims. Donald Trump even made releasing the documents related to the Epstein probe part of his campaign platform, and doubled down on his commitment to do so early this year.

Ultimately, the administration’s Department of Justice did not release these files, and his government has become embroiled in allegations about personal connections between him and Epstein. Congressional promises to release files have stalled, due to political jockeying and justice department foot-dragging.

But two new lawsuits could provide clarity on Epstein’s activities amid the stalemate – irrespective of their outcome.

Lawsuits Aim at Major Banks

These lawsuits, submitted by an unnamed accuser against a major U.S. bank and the Bank of New York Mellon (BNY), allege that these financial powerhouses unlawfully facilitated Epstein’s sex trafficking. The cases are led by Sigrid S McCawley, of Boies Schiller Flexner, and lawyer Brad Edwards of Edwards Henderson, who have consistently advocated for Epstein victims.

“The financier carried out these offenses by means of not only his own extraordinary wealth and power, but through access to funding and monetary assistance from both individuals and institutions, including the bank,” one lawsuit claims. “Egregiously, the institution had a abundance of knowledge regarding Epstein’s sex trafficking operation but chose profit over protecting the victims.”

The complaint against Bank of America echoes these allegations, declaring the institution “deliberately supplied the financial support and the veneer of institutional legitimacy for Epstein and his co-conspirators to support their international sex trafficking organization under the pretext of legal commercial dealings”. The legal action also said the bank neglected to file mandatory financial alerts.

Attorneys Offer Perspectives on Case Challenges

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

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

“In my view, the case faces significant obstacles – and clearly I am on the side of the survivors, and I want them to get answers and legal redress and financial recovery,” the attorney said. Certain allegations might be not directly related from a legal standpoint.

“The case hinges on proof,” he said. A attorney would need to prove causation, which would mean “if not for the bank’s actions, the injury wouldn’t have occurred”. In this instance, that would translate to “but for the bank’s conduct, the victim maybe wouldn’t have been trafficked”, the lawyer explained.

An attorney would also have to go further than 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 leading to the plaintiff harm.

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

Regardless of legal responsibility, such lawsuits could serve as a warning that relationships with those involved in alleged crimes can have damaging implications for them.

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

Attorney Eric Faddis, a trial attorney and founder of the legal practice Varner Faddis and ex-government lawyer, said corporations can be responsible. In this scenario, “if the institutions bear fault is going to hinge, in part, on their level of awareness, if they were informed of claimed misconduct or criminal wrongdoing”, and in some way offered support to Epstein.

“However, even in that case, I think it’s going to be hard to sort of loop the banks 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, “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 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

Nevertheless, key elements 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. “Despite the fact that there have been sort of walls put up at every turn for individuals pursuing this data, when there’s a legal action, there’s a discovery process, and that discovery process often mandates disclosure of information 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.

“Legal actions are essential for full accountability 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 essential role each plays, either in providing the required framework for the criminal enterprise or identifying the financial component of these offenses and stopping it.

Edwards continued: “Our prospects are significantly higher of making a real difference than Congress, because we understand the facts and history of the matter and are not motivated by politics but rather by a sincere intention to make a real difference and to safeguard the victims, who have already endured immense pain.

“Our handling of these issues without any partisan motives and thus cannot be deterred by shutdowns, shielding influential figures, or the other embarrassing partisan gamesmanship you and the rest of the world have had to watch unfold recently.”

McCawley said in a statement: “As Congress works toward unraveling how Jeffrey Epstein was able to orchestrate his criminal sex-trafficking enterprise for many years without being caught, we are taking another important step forward toward legal resolution for survivors.”

Institutional Reactions

Asked for comment on the legal complaint, 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 similarly remarked: “We will vigorously defend ourselves in this case.”