🔗 Share this article

Over many years, survivors of the late financier Jeffrey Epstein have sought justice. For a while, it seemed like they would achieve it.

Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s ex-girlfriend, was convicted of human trafficking four years ago for her involvement in the deceased billionaire’s exploitation of teen girls – and given to two decades behind bars.

Meanwhile, financial firms that had worked with Epstein, although not accepting fault, paid substantial sums in settlements to victims. Former President Trump even made disclosing the documents related to the Epstein probe part of his election promises, and doubled down on his commitment to do so in recent months.

Ultimately, the administration’s Department of Justice did not make public these records, and his government has become embroiled in reports about personal connections between him and Epstein. Congressional promises to disclose documents 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 – regardless of their outcome.

Lawsuits Aim at Major Banks

These lawsuits, submitted by an unnamed accuser against Bank of America and the Bank of New York Mellon (BNY), allege that these financial powerhouses unlawfully facilitated Epstein’s trafficking ring. The suits are led by attorney Sigrid McCawley, of Boies Schiller Flexner, and lawyer Brad Edwards of his legal practice, who have consistently advocated for survivors of Epstein’s abuse.

“Epstein committed these crimes by means of not only his own vast fortune and influence, but through access to funding and financial support from both individuals and organizations, including BNY,” one lawsuit states. “Shockingly, the institution had a plethora of information regarding Epstein’s sex trafficking operation but opted for financial gain over safeguarding those harmed.”

The complaint against Bank of America mirrors these claims, declaring the institution “deliberately supplied the financial support and the appearance of respectability for Epstein and his accomplices to fuel their global trafficking enterprise under the pretext of non-criminal business activities”. The legal action also said Bank of America failed to file suspicious activity reports.

Legal Experts Weigh In on Legal Hurdles

Longtime attorneys who spoke to the matter said establishing liability would be challenging. But they also identified potential results which could offer comfort to plaintiffs or disclosure of long-sought information.

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

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

An attorney would also have to go beyond a basic causation test. “It’s not solely about indirect cause. 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 defendant’s misconduct has to have been a substantial factor in leading to the victim’s suffering.

“By engaging in a business relationship with Epstein, is that a decisive element? I don’t know.”

Liability aside, such lawsuits 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 banks try to get these suits thrown out and fail, Rahmani expects a quick resolution. “No one wants to go litigate any of the legal matters tied to Epstein.”

Eric Faddis, a trial attorney and founder of the Colorado law firm his firm and former prosecutor, said corporations can be liable. In this scenario, “whether the banks have liability is going to hinge, in part, on their level of awareness, if they were informed of alleged abuse or illegal acts”, and in some way offered support to Epstein.

“But even then, I think it’s going to be difficult to sort of loop the banks into some kind of trafficking operation. The institutions would probably not be privy to the particulars of allegations,” Faddis said. While Epstein’s Florida conviction was known, “it’s not illegal for a financial institution to have a client who’s an unsavory person”.

“It is illegal for a bank to somehow be involved in the criminal activity of a client, 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 legal proceedings could help Epstein survivors.

“These cases may uncover additional details about the ongoing Epstein saga,” Faddis said. “Despite the fact that there have been obstacles erected at every turn for folks seeking this data, when there’s a lawsuit, there’s a evidence-gathering phase, and that legal procedure often requires release of information that was not formerly available.”

Attorney Brad Edwards said in a statement that the suits could have a preventive impact and achieve what legislators have failed to do.

“Legal actions are essential for full accountability for the survivors 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 supplying the required framework for the illegal operation or recognizing the financial component of these crimes and stopping it.

Edwards continued: “We have a far better chance of making a real difference than Congress, because we understand the details and background of the case and are not motivated by politics but rather by a genuine desire to make a real difference and to protect the victims, who have already suffered tremendously.

“Our handling of these issues without any partisan motives and thus will not be swayed by obstructions, protecting wealthy politically connected individuals, or the other embarrassing partisan gamesmanship you and the rest of the world have had to observe recently.”

McCawley said in a declaration: “While legislators attempt to uncover how the financier was able to orchestrate his illegal trafficking operation for many years without being caught, we are taking another important step forward toward justice for victims.”

Institutional Reactions

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.”

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