🔗 Share this article

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

Epstein’s former associate Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s ex-girlfriend, was found guilty of sex trafficking in a 2021 trial for her involvement in the deceased billionaire’s exploitation of teen girls – and given to 20 years imprisonment.

At the same time, financial firms that had worked with Epstein, although not admitting wrongdoing, paid substantial sums in agreements to victims. Former President Trump even made disclosing the Epstein investigative files part of his election promises, and reiterated on his promise to do so in recent months.

In the end, Trump’s justice department did not release these files, and his administration has become involved in allegations about personal connections between him and Epstein. Assurances from lawmakers to release files have lagged, due to political jockeying and justice department foot-dragging.

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

Legal Actions Aim at Major Banks

The legal complaints, submitted by an anonymous plaintiff against a major U.S. bank and the Bank of New York Mellon (BNY), allege that these banking giants unlawfully facilitated Epstein’s trafficking ring. The suits are led by attorney Sigrid McCawley, of a prominent law firm, and lawyer Brad Edwards of Edwards Henderson, who have consistently advocated for Epstein victims.

“Epstein committed these crimes by means of not only his own extraordinary wealth and power, but through financial backing and monetary assistance from both individuals and institutions, including the bank,” the legal filing states. “Egregiously, BNY had a plethora of information 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 “deliberately supplied the financial support and the appearance of respectability for Epstein and his accomplices to fuel their global trafficking enterprise under the guise of legal commercial dealings”. The suit also said the bank neglected to file suspicious activity reports.

Legal Experts Weigh In on Legal Hurdles

Longtime attorneys who commented on the matter said proving such a case would be challenging. But they also noted possible outcomes which could provide solace to plaintiffs or release of long-sought information.

Neama Rahmani, a ex-government lawyer who established a legal firm, 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 survivors, and I want them to get answers and criminal justice and compensation,” Rahmani said. Certain allegations 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 “if not for the bank’s actions, the harm wouldn’t have happened”. In this instance, that would translate to “but for the bank’s conduct, the survivor maybe wouldn’t have been exploited”, the lawyer explained.

A lawyer would also have to go beyond a “but for” measure. “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 leading to the victim’s suffering.

“By engaging in a business relationship with Epstein, is that a decisive element? It’s uncertain.”

Regardless of legal responsibility, such lawsuits could serve as a warning that relationships with those involved in alleged crimes can have damaging implications 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 swift settlement. “No one wants to go litigate any of the legal matters tied to Epstein.”

Eric Faddis, a trial attorney and founder of the legal practice his firm and ex-government lawyer, said corporations can be liable. In this scenario, “whether the banks have liability is going to depend, in part, on what the banks knew, if they were informed of alleged abuse or criminal wrongdoing”, and in some way offered support to Epstein.

“But even then, I think it’s going to be hard to sort of loop the banks into some kind of trafficking operation. The banks would probably not be aware of the particulars of claims,” Faddis said. While the financier’s prior legal case was public, “it’s not illegal for a bank to have a client who’s an disreputable individual”.

“However, it is unlawful for a financial firm to in any way be involved in the criminal activity of a customer, but these aspects are distinct, and so I think that it’s going to be a tough lawsuit against the banks.”

Potential Benefits for Victims

That said, important aspects of the litigation could help those affected by Epstein.

“The lawsuits have the potential to reveal more information about the ongoing Epstein saga,” Faddis said. “Despite the fact that there have been sort of walls put up at every turn for folks seeking this information, when there’s a legal action, there’s a evidence-gathering phase, and that legal procedure often requires disclosure of materials that was not previously public.”

Edwards said in a statement that the lawsuits could have a deterrent effect and achieve what lawmakers have been unable to do.

“The lawsuits are necessary for complete justice for the survivors 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 crucial part each performs, either in providing the required framework for the illegal operation or identifying the monetary aspect of these offenses and putting an end to it.

Edwards continued: “We have a far better chance of making a real difference than lawmakers, because we know the details and background of the matter and are not motivated by politics but rather by a sincere intention to make a real difference and to safeguard the survivors, who have already suffered tremendously.

“Our handling of these issues without any political agenda and thus cannot be deterred by obstructions, protecting wealthy politically connected individuals, or the other embarrassing partisan gamesmanship you and the rest of the world have had to observe recently.”

McCawley said in a declaration: “While legislators attempt to uncover how Jeffrey Epstein was able to conduct his criminal sex-trafficking enterprise for many years without being caught, we are taking a further significant action forward toward legal resolution for victims.”

Bank Responses

Asked for comment on the lawsuit, BNY said: “The allegations in the case are baseless, and we will strongly contest against it.”

The bank’s response similarly remarked: “We will vigorously defend ourselves in this case.”