🔗 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.

Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s ex-girlfriend, was convicted of sex trafficking in a 2021 trial for her role in the late financier’s sexual abuse of teen girls – and sentenced to two decades behind bars.

Meanwhile, banks that had worked with Epstein, although not admitting wrongdoing, paid 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, the administration’s Department of Justice did not make public these records, and his administration has become embroiled in allegations about social ties between him and Epstein. Assurances from lawmakers to disclose documents have lagged, due to political jockeying and justice department foot-dragging.

However two new lawsuits could provide clarity on Epstein’s operations amid the deadlock – irrespective of their outcome.

Lawsuits Aim at Major Banks

These lawsuits, filed by an unnamed accuser against a major U.S. bank and the Bank of New York Mellon (BNY), claim that these financial powerhouses unlawfully facilitated Epstein’s sex trafficking. The suits are led by attorney Sigrid McCawley, of Boies Schiller Flexner, and Brad Edwards of Edwards Henderson, who have consistently advocated for Epstein victims.

“The financier carried out these offenses 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 the bank,” the legal filing states. “Egregiously, BNY had a abundance of knowledge regarding Epstein’s sex trafficking operation but chose profit over protecting the victims.”

The complaint against Bank of America mirrors these claims, asserting the institution “knowingly provided 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 non-criminal business activities”. The suit also said the bank neglected to file suspicious activity reports.

Legal Experts Weigh In on Legal Hurdles

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

Attorney Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor who founded a legal firm, said proof has to show that an institution’s actions resulted in harm.

“I don’t think the lawsuit has much of a chance of success – and clearly I am on the side of the victims, and I want them to get explanations and legal redress and financial recovery,” Rahmani said. Some claims might be not directly related from a juridical perspective.

“It all comes down to evidence,” Rahmani said. A attorney would need to prove cause and effect, which would mean “but for the defendant’s conduct, the injury wouldn’t have happened”. In this case, that would translate to “but for the bank’s conduct, the survivor maybe wouldn’t have been trafficked”, the lawyer clarified.

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 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 key contributor in causing the plaintiff harm.

“Through maintaining financial ties to Epstein, is that a substantial factor? It’s uncertain.”

Regardless of legal responsibility, such lawsuits could serve as a warning that relationships with those accused of wrongdoing can have damaging implications for them.

“It’s a PR nightmare,” he said. If the banks try to get these suits thrown out and are unsuccessful, the attorney expects a quick resolution. “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 ex-government lawyer, said companies can be liable. 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 alleged abuse 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 aware of the details of allegations,” the lawyer said. While the financier’s prior legal case 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 involved in the illegal actions of a client, but these aspects are very different, and so I think that it’s going to be a tough lawsuit against the institutions.”

Possible Advantages for Victims

Nevertheless, key elements 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 sort of walls put up at every turn for folks pursuing this information, when there’s a legal action, there’s a evidence-gathering phase, and that discovery process often mandates disclosure of materials that was not formerly available.”

Edwards said in a comment that the lawsuits could have a deterrent effect and achieve what lawmakers have failed to do.

“Legal actions are essential for full accountability for the survivors 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 crucial part each performs, either in providing the required framework for the criminal enterprise or identifying the monetary aspect of these crimes and stopping it.

He added: “Our prospects are significantly higher 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 sincere intention to create substantial impact and to protect the victims, who have already suffered tremendously.

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

McCawley said in a statement: “As Congress works toward unraveling how the financier was able to orchestrate his criminal sex-trafficking enterprise for decades without being caught, we are taking another important step forward toward legal resolution 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 strongly contest against it.”

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