🔗 Share this article

Over many years, victims of Jeffrey Epstein have demanded justice. At one point, it seemed like they would achieve it.

Ghislaine Maxwell, the financier’s one-time partner, was found guilty of sex trafficking four years ago for her involvement in the late financier’s sexual abuse of underage females – and sentenced to 20 years imprisonment.

Meanwhile, banks that had done business with Epstein, although not accepting fault, paid hundreds of millions in settlements to victims. Donald Trump even made releasing the Epstein investigative files part of his campaign platform, 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 allegations about social ties between him and Epstein. Congressional promises to disclose documents have stalled, due to partisan maneuvering and justice department foot-dragging.

However two new lawsuits 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 BNY Mellon, claim that these financial powerhouses unlawfully facilitated Epstein’s sex trafficking. The suits are helmed by attorney Sigrid McCawley, of a prominent law firm, and lawyer Brad Edwards of Edwards Henderson, who have long represented Epstein victims.

“Epstein committed these crimes by means of not only his own vast fortune and influence, but through financial backing and monetary assistance from both private parties and institutions, including the bank,” one lawsuit claims. “Egregiously, the institution had a abundance of knowledge regarding Epstein’s sex trafficking operation but opted for financial gain over safeguarding those harmed.”

The Bank of America suit mirrors these claims, declaring the institution “knowingly provided the monetary resources and the appearance of respectability for Epstein and his co-conspirators to fuel their global trafficking enterprise under the guise of non-criminal business activities”. The suit also said the bank failed to file mandatory financial alerts.

Attorneys Weigh In on Case Challenges

Experienced lawyers who spoke to the matter said proving such a case would be difficult. But they also noted potential results which could provide solace to accusers or disclosure of long-sought information.

Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor who founded West Coast Trial lawyers, said evidence has to show that an bank’s conduct led to harm.

“I don’t think the lawsuit has much of a chance of success – and obviously I am on the side of the survivors, and I want them to get explanations and legal redress and compensation,” the attorney said. Some claims might be too tangential 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 harm wouldn’t have happened”. In this case, that would boil down to “absent the institution’s involvement, the survivor maybe wouldn’t have been exploited”, Rahmani clarified.

An attorney would also have to go beyond a basic causation test. “It’s not solely about indirect cause. It also has to be a substantial factor: that is the legal test. So any improper behavior there was, if there was any misconduct … the bank’s actions has to have been a substantial factor in causing the victim’s suffering.

“By engaging in a business relationship with Epstein, is that a decisive element? I don’t know.”

Regardless of legal responsibility, suits like this could serve as a warning that relationships with those involved in alleged crimes can have negative consequences for them.

“It’s a PR nightmare,” Rahmani noted. If the financial institutions try to get these suits dismissed and are unsuccessful, Rahmani expects 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 legal practice Varner Faddis and ex-government lawyer, said companies can be responsible. In this scenario, “if the institutions bear fault is going to depend, in part, on their level of awareness, 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 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 Epstein’s Florida conviction was known, “there’s no law against for a financial institution to have a client who’s an disreputable individual”.

“However, it is unlawful for a bank to somehow be complicit in the illegal actions of a customer, but these aspects are very different, and so I think that it’s going to be a difficult case against the institutions.”

Potential Benefits for Survivors

Nevertheless, key elements of the legal proceedings could help those affected by Epstein.

“These cases may uncover additional details about the continuing Epstein story,” the attorney said. “Despite the fact that there have been sort of walls put up at every turn for individuals pursuing this information, when there’s a legal action, there’s a discovery process, and that discovery process often mandates disclosure of materials that was not formerly available.”

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

“Legal actions are essential for full accountability for the victims of Jeffrey Epstein – as well as for potential targets who will suffer from similar trafficking organizations – if our banks are not held accountable for the crucial part each performs, either in supplying the necessary infrastructure for the criminal enterprise or identifying the financial component of these crimes and stopping it.

Edwards continued: “We have a far better chance of making a real difference than Congress, because we understand the details and history of the case and are not motivated by partisan interests 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 will not be swayed by obstructions, shielding influential figures, or the other shameful political maneuvering 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 Jeffrey Epstein was able to conduct his criminal sex-trafficking enterprise for decades without detection, we are taking another important step forward toward legal resolution for victims.”

Bank Responses

When requested for a statement on the legal complaint, BNY said: “The allegations in the case are baseless, and we will vigorously defend against it.”

The bank’s response likewise stated: “We will vigorously defend ourselves in this matter.”