🔗 Share this article

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

Epstein’s former associate Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s ex-girlfriend, was found guilty of sex trafficking in a 2021 trial for her role in the deceased billionaire’s exploitation of underage females – and sentenced to two decades behind bars.

At the same time, banks that had done business with Epstein, while not admitting wrongdoing, paid substantial sums in agreements to survivors. Former President Trump even made disclosing the Epstein investigative files part of his election promises, and reiterated on his promise to do so early this year.

In the end, Trump’s justice department did not release these records, and his government has become embroiled in reports about social ties between him and Epstein. Assurances from lawmakers to disclose documents have stalled, due to partisan maneuvering and justice department foot-dragging.

However recent legal actions could provide clarity on Epstein’s operations amid the stalemate – regardless of their outcome.

Legal Actions Target Major Banks

These lawsuits, filed by an anonymous plaintiff against Bank of America and the BNY Mellon, claim that these financial powerhouses illicitly enabled Epstein’s trafficking ring. The cases are led by Sigrid S McCawley, of a prominent law firm, and lawyer Brad Edwards of his legal practice, who have long represented 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 the bank,” the legal filing states. “Shockingly, BNY had a abundance of knowledge regarding Epstein’s trafficking network but opted for financial gain over safeguarding those harmed.”

The Bank of America suit mirrors these claims, asserting the institution “deliberately supplied the financial support and the appearance of respectability for Epstein and his accomplices to support their international sex trafficking organization under the guise of legal commercial dealings”. The suit also said the bank failed to file suspicious activity reports.

Attorneys Offer Perspectives on Case Challenges

Experienced lawyers who commented on the matter said proving such a case would be difficult. But they also noted possible outcomes which could provide solace to accusers or disclosure 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 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 explanations and criminal justice and compensation,” Rahmani said. Some claims might be too tangential from a juridical perspective.

“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 harm wouldn’t have happened”. In this case, that would boil down to “but for the bank’s conduct, the victim maybe wouldn’t have been trafficked”, the lawyer explained.

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 significant element: that is the legal test. So whatever misconduct 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, such lawsuits could put institutions on notice that associations with those involved in alleged crimes can have damaging implications for them.

“It represents a reputational disaster,” he said. If the banks try to get these suits thrown out and are unsuccessful, Rahmani anticipates a quick resolution. “No party desires to pursue any of the legal matters tied to Epstein.”

Attorney Eric Faddis, a litigator and principal of the Colorado law firm his firm and former prosecutor, said companies can be responsible. In this scenario, “whether the banks have liability is going to hinge, in part, on what the banks knew, whether they had any knowledge of claimed misconduct or criminal wrongdoing”, and in some way provided assistance to Epstein.

“But even then, I think it’s going to be hard to sort of loop the financial entities into some kind of trafficking operation. The institutions would likely not be privy to the details of allegations,” the lawyer said. While Epstein’s Florida conviction was known, “it’s not illegal for a financial institution to have a customer who’s an disreputable individual”.

“However, it is unlawful for a financial firm to somehow be complicit 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, important aspects of the legal proceedings could assist those affected by Epstein.

“The lawsuits have the potential to reveal more information about the continuing Epstein story,” the attorney said. “Despite the fact that there have been obstacles erected at every turn for individuals pursuing this data, when there’s a lawsuit, there’s a evidence-gathering phase, and that legal procedure often requires release of materials that was not formerly available.”

Edwards said in a statement that the lawsuits could have a deterrent effect and achieve what legislators have been unable to do.

“The lawsuits are necessary for complete justice for the victims of the financier – as well as for potential targets who will be harmed from comparable criminal networks – if our financial institutions are not made responsible for the essential role each performs, either in supplying the necessary infrastructure for the illegal operation or recognizing the monetary aspect of these crimes and stopping it.

Edwards continued: “We have a far better chance of effecting meaningful change than lawmakers, because we understand the details and background of the case and are not motivated by partisan interests but rather by a genuine desire to make a real difference and to protect the survivors, who have already endured immense pain.

“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 statement: “While legislators attempt to uncover how the financier was able to conduct his criminal sex-trafficking enterprise for decades without being caught, we are taking another important step forward toward justice for victims.”

Bank Responses

Asked for comment on the legal complaint, BNY said: “The claims in the lawsuit are meritless, and we will strongly contest against it.”

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