🔗 Share this article

For years, victims of the late financier Jeffrey Epstein have sought accountability. At one point, it seemed like they would get it.

Epstein’s former associate Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s ex-girlfriend, was found guilty of human trafficking in a 2021 trial for her role in the late financier’s exploitation of underage females – and given to 20 years imprisonment.

Meanwhile, financial firms that had worked with Epstein, while 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 election promises, and reiterated on his promise to do so early this year.

In the end, the administration’s Department of Justice did not release these records, and his government has become involved in reports about personal connections between him and Epstein. Congressional promises to disclose documents have lagged, due to political jockeying and justice department foot-dragging.

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

Lawsuits Aim at 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), allege that these banking giants illicitly enabled Epstein’s sex trafficking. The suits are led by Sigrid S McCawley, of a prominent law firm, and Brad Edwards of Edwards Henderson, who have long represented survivors of Epstein’s abuse.

“The financier carried out these offenses by means of not only his own vast fortune and power, but through financial backing and financial support from both private parties and institutions, including the bank,” the legal filing claims. “Shockingly, BNY had a plethora of information regarding Epstein’s trafficking network but opted for financial gain over protecting the victims.”

The complaint against Bank of America echoes these allegations, declaring the institution “deliberately supplied the monetary resources and the veneer of institutional legitimacy for Epstein and his co-conspirators to fuel their international sex trafficking organization under the pretext of legal commercial dealings”. The suit also said the bank failed to file suspicious activity reports.

Attorneys Offer Perspectives on Legal Hurdles

Longtime attorneys who commented on the matter said establishing liability would be difficult. But they also identified possible outcomes which could offer comfort to accusers or disclosure of previously hidden details.

Attorney Neama Rahmani, a ex-government lawyer who established a legal firm, said proof has to show that an bank’s conduct resulted in harm.

“In my view, the case faces significant obstacles – and obviously I am on the side of the survivors, and I want them to get answers and criminal justice and compensation,” Rahmani said. Some claims 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 “but for the defendant’s conduct, the injury wouldn’t have occurred”. In this case, that would translate to “but for the bank’s conduct, the victim maybe wouldn’t have been trafficked”, Rahmani explained.

A lawyer would also have to go further than a “but for” measure. “It’s not solely about indirect cause. It also has to be a substantial factor: that is the legal test. So whatever misconduct there was, if there was any misconduct … 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 serve as a warning that relationships with those accused of wrongdoing can have damaging implications for them.

“It represents a reputational disaster,” Rahmani noted. If the financial institutions try to get these suits dismissed and fail, the attorney anticipates a swift settlement. “No one wants to go litigate any of the legal matters tied to Epstein.”

Eric Faddis, a litigator and founder of the Colorado law firm Varner Faddis and former prosecutor, said corporations can be liable. 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 criminal wrongdoing”, and in some way provided assistance to Epstein.

“However, even in that case, I think it’s going to be difficult to sort of loop the banks into some kind of trafficking operation. The institutions would likely not be privy to the details of claims,” Faddis said. While the financier’s prior legal case was public, “there’s no law against for a bank to have a customer who’s an unsavory person”.

“It is illegal for a bank to in any way be involved in the illegal actions of a customer, but these aspects are very different, and so I think that it’s going to be a tough lawsuit against the banks.”

Potential Benefits for Victims

That said, important aspects of the legal proceedings could help 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 folks seeking this data, when there’s a legal action, there’s a discovery process, and that discovery process often requires release of information that was not formerly available.”

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

“The lawsuits are necessary for complete justice for the victims of Jeffrey Epstein – as well as for future would-be victims who will be harmed from comparable criminal networks – if our financial institutions are not made responsible for the essential role each plays, either in supplying the required framework for the criminal enterprise or identifying the financial component of these crimes and putting an end to it.

Edwards continued: “Our prospects are significantly higher of effecting meaningful change than Congress, because we know the details and history of the matter and are not motivated by partisan interests but rather by a genuine desire to create substantial impact and to protect the survivors, 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 embarrassing partisan gamesmanship you and the rest of the world have had to watch unfold recently.”

Attorney Sigrid McCawley said in a declaration: “As Congress works toward unraveling how the financier was able to conduct his criminal sex-trafficking enterprise for decades without being caught, we are taking a further significant action forward toward legal resolution for survivors.”

Institutional Reactions

When requested for a statement on the lawsuit, BNY 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.”