🔗 Share this article

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

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

At the same time, banks that had worked with Epstein, while not accepting fault, agreed to pay substantial sums in settlements to survivors. Donald Trump even made disclosing the Epstein investigative files part of his campaign platform, and doubled down on his promise to do so early this year.

In the end, the administration’s Department of Justice did not release these files, and his administration has become involved in reports about social ties between him and Epstein. Congressional promises to disclose documents have stalled, due to partisan maneuvering and delays from federal authorities.

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

Legal Actions Target Major Banks

The legal complaints, filed by an anonymous plaintiff against Bank of America and the BNY Mellon, claim that these banking giants unlawfully facilitated Epstein’s trafficking ring. The suits are helmed by Sigrid S McCawley, of a prominent law firm, and lawyer 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 influence, but through access to funding and monetary assistance from both individuals and institutions, including BNY,” the legal filing claims. “Shockingly, BNY had a plethora of information regarding Epstein’s sex trafficking operation but opted for financial gain over protecting the victims.”

The Bank of America suit mirrors these claims, declaring the institution “deliberately supplied the financial support and the appearance of respectability for Epstein and his co-conspirators to fuel their global trafficking enterprise under the pretext of non-criminal business activities”. The suit also said Bank of America failed to file suspicious activity reports.

Legal Experts Offer Perspectives on Legal Hurdles

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

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

“In my view, the case faces significant obstacles – and clearly I am on the side of the victims, and I want them to get explanations and criminal justice and financial recovery,” the attorney said. Some claims might be too tangential from a legal standpoint.

“It all comes down to evidence,” he said. A attorney would need to prove cause and effect, which would mean “if not for the bank’s actions, the injury wouldn’t have happened”. In this instance, that would boil down to “absent the institution’s involvement, the survivor maybe wouldn’t have been exploited”, Rahmani explained.

A lawyer would also have to go further than a basic causation test. “Is not just ‘but for’ causation. It also has to be a substantial factor: that is the legal test. So whatever misconduct there was, if there was any wrongdoing … the defendant’s misconduct 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 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 thrown out and fail, Rahmani expects a swift settlement. “No one wants to go litigate any of the legal matters tied to Epstein.”

Eric Faddis, a trial attorney and principal of the Colorado law firm Varner Faddis and ex-government lawyer, said corporations 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 illegal acts”, and somehow offered support to Epstein.

“However, even in that case, I think it’s going to be hard to sort of loop the financial entities into some kind of trafficking operation. The banks would probably not be aware of the details of allegations,” Faddis 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 somehow be complicit in the criminal activity of a client, but these aspects are very different, and so I think that it’s going to be a difficult case against the institutions.”

Possible Advantages for Victims

That said, important aspects of the litigation could assist Epstein survivors.

“These cases may uncover additional details about the ongoing Epstein saga,” the attorney said. “Even though there have been obstacles erected at every turn for individuals pursuing this data, when there’s a legal action, there’s a evidence-gathering phase, and that discovery process often mandates release of information that was not previously public.”

Edwards said in a comment that the suits could have a preventive impact and accomplish what legislators 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 similar trafficking organizations – if our banks are not held accountable for the crucial part each plays, either in providing the required framework for the illegal operation or identifying the financial component of these crimes and putting an end to it.

He added: “We have a far better chance of effecting meaningful change than Congress, because we know the details and background of the matter 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.

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

Attorney Sigrid McCawley said in a statement: “As Congress works toward unraveling how the financier was able to orchestrate his criminal sex-trafficking enterprise for many years without being caught, we are taking another important step forward toward justice for survivors.”

Bank Responses

When requested for a statement on the lawsuit, the Bank of New York Mellon said: “The claims in the lawsuit are meritless, and we will vigorously defend against it.”

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