🔗 Share this article

For years, survivors of Jeffrey Epstein have sought justice. At one point, it appeared like they would get it.

Epstein’s former associate Ghislaine Maxwell, the financier’s one-time partner, was found guilty of sex trafficking four years ago for her role in the late financier’s sexual abuse of underage females – and sentenced to two decades behind bars.

Meanwhile, banks that had worked with Epstein, while not accepting fault, paid hundreds of millions in settlements to victims. Donald Trump even made disclosing the Epstein investigative files part of his election promises, and reiterated on his promise to do so early this year.

Ultimately, the administration’s Department of Justice did not release these records, and his administration has become embroiled in reports about social ties between him and Epstein. Congressional promises to disclose documents have stalled, due to political jockeying and justice department foot-dragging.

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

Legal Actions Target Major Banks

The legal complaints, filed by an anonymous plaintiff against Bank of America and the Bank of New York Mellon (BNY), allege that these financial powerhouses illicitly enabled Epstein’s trafficking ring. The suits are helmed by attorney Sigrid McCawley, of Boies Schiller Flexner, and Brad Edwards of Edwards Henderson, who have consistently advocated for Epstein victims.

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

The Bank of America suit echoes these allegations, declaring the institution “knowingly provided the monetary resources and the veneer of institutional legitimacy for Epstein and his accomplices to support their global trafficking enterprise under the guise of legal commercial dealings”. The suit also said Bank of America failed to file mandatory financial alerts.

Legal Experts Weigh In on Legal Hurdles

Experienced lawyers who commented on the matter said proving such a case would be difficult. But they also noted potential results which could offer comfort to accusers 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 led to 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 explanations and criminal justice and compensation,” Rahmani said. Some claims might be too tangential from a legal standpoint.

“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 instance, that would translate to “absent the institution’s involvement, the survivor maybe wouldn’t have been trafficked”, Rahmani clarified.

A lawyer would also have to go beyond a basic causation test. “Is not just ‘but for’ causation. It also has to be a substantial factor: that is the standard. So whatever misconduct there was, if there was any wrongdoing … the defendant’s misconduct 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, suits like this could serve as a warning that associations with those involved in alleged crimes can have negative consequences for them.

“It represents a reputational disaster,” Rahmani noted. If the financial institutions try to get these cases dismissed and are unsuccessful, the attorney expects a quick resolution. “No party desires to pursue any of the Epstein-related cases.”

Attorney Eric Faddis, a litigator and founder of the Colorado law firm his firm and former prosecutor, said companies can be liable. In this situation, “if the institutions bear fault is going to hinge, in part, on what the banks knew, whether they had any knowledge of alleged abuse 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 effectively connect the banks into some kind of sex-trafficking scheme. The banks would likely not be aware of the details of allegations,” the lawyer said. While the financier’s prior legal case was known, “it’s not illegal for a financial institution to have a client who’s an unsavory person”.

“It is illegal for a financial firm to in any way be involved in the criminal activity of a client, but those two issues are very different, and so I think that it’s going to be a tough lawsuit against the banks.”

Potential Benefits for Survivors

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 ongoing Epstein saga,” Faddis said. “Even though there have been obstacles erected at every turn for individuals seeking this information, when there’s a lawsuit, there’s a discovery process, and that discovery process often requires disclosure of materials that was not formerly available.”

Attorney Brad Edwards said in a comment that the lawsuits could have a preventive impact and accomplish what legislators have failed to do.

“Legal actions are essential for full accountability for the victims of Jeffrey Epstein – as well as for potential targets who will be harmed from comparable criminal networks – if our banks are not made responsible for the essential role each performs, either in supplying the required framework for the criminal enterprise or identifying the monetary aspect of these offenses and stopping it.

Edwards continued: “We have a far better chance of effecting meaningful change 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 create substantial impact and to protect the survivors, who have already endured immense pain.

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

McCawley said in a statement: “As Congress works toward unraveling how the financier was able to orchestrate his illegal trafficking operation for decades without detection, we are taking another important step forward toward justice for victims.”

Institutional Reactions

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

Bank of America’s statement similarly remarked: “We will vigorously defend ourselves in this matter.”