🔗 Share this article

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

Epstein’s former associate Ghislaine Maxwell, the financier’s one-time partner, was convicted of human trafficking four years ago for her role in the late financier’s exploitation of underage females – and sentenced to 20 years imprisonment.

Meanwhile, banks that had done business with Epstein, while not admitting wrongdoing, agreed to pay substantial sums in settlements to victims. Former President Trump even made disclosing the Epstein investigative files part of his election promises, and doubled down on his promise to do so early this year.

Ultimately, Trump’s justice department did not release these files, and his administration has become embroiled in allegations about social ties between him and Epstein. Congressional promises to disclose documents have stalled, due to political jockeying and delays from federal authorities.

But recent legal actions could provide clarity on Epstein’s activities amid the deadlock – irrespective of their outcome.

Legal Actions Target Major Banks

These lawsuits, filed by an unnamed accuser against Bank of America and the Bank of New York Mellon (BNY), allege that these financial powerhouses illicitly enabled Epstein’s sex trafficking. The cases are helmed by attorney Sigrid McCawley, of a prominent law firm, and lawyer 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 extraordinary wealth and power, but through financial backing and financial support from both individuals and organizations, including the bank,” the legal filing states. “Egregiously, the institution had a plethora of information regarding Epstein’s trafficking network but chose profit over protecting the victims.”

The Bank of America suit echoes these allegations, asserting the institution “knowingly provided the financial support and the veneer of institutional legitimacy for Epstein and his co-conspirators to fuel their global trafficking enterprise under the pretext of non-criminal business activities”. The suit also said the bank failed to file suspicious activity reports.

Attorneys Offer Perspectives on Case Challenges

Experienced lawyers who commented on the situation said establishing liability would be challenging. But they also noted potential results which could provide solace to accusers or release of previously hidden details.

Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor who founded a legal firm, said evidence has to show that an institution’s actions led to 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 criminal justice and financial recovery,” the attorney said. Some claims might be not directly related from a juridical perspective.

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

A lawyer would also have to go beyond a “but for” measure. “Is not just ‘but for’ causation. It also has to be a significant element: that is the standard. So whatever misconduct there was, if there was any misconduct … the bank’s actions has to have been a substantial factor in causing the victim’s suffering.

“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 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 dismissed and fail, the attorney anticipates a swift settlement. “No party desires to pursue any of the Epstein-related cases.”

Eric Faddis, a trial attorney and principal of the Colorado law firm his firm and ex-government lawyer, said companies can be liable. In this scenario, “if the institutions bear fault is going to hinge, in part, on their level of awareness, whether they had any knowledge of alleged abuse or criminal wrongdoing”, and somehow provided assistance to Epstein.

“But even then, I think it’s going to be difficult to effectively connect the financial entities into some kind of sex-trafficking scheme. The institutions would likely not be privy to the particulars of claims,” Faddis said. While Epstein’s Florida conviction was public, “there’s no law against for a bank to have a client who’s an disreputable individual”.

“It is illegal for a bank to in any way be complicit in the illegal actions of a customer, but those two issues are distinct, and so I think that it’s going to be a difficult case against the institutions.”

Possible Advantages for Survivors

That said, 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,” Faddis said. “Even though there have been obstacles erected at every turn for individuals seeking this information, when there’s a legal action, there’s a evidence-gathering phase, and that discovery process often requires release of materials that was not formerly available.”

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 survivors of the financier – 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 crucial part each performs, either in providing the necessary infrastructure for the illegal operation or recognizing the financial component of these offenses and putting an end to 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 politics but rather by a genuine desire to create substantial impact and to safeguard the victims, who have already suffered tremendously.

“We approach these matters 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 observe recently.”

Attorney Sigrid McCawley said in a declaration: “As Congress works toward unraveling how Jeffrey Epstein 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.”

Institutional Reactions

When requested for a statement 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.”

Bank of America’s statement likewise stated: “We intend to firmly protect our interests in this matter.”