🔗 Share this article

Over many years, survivors of Jeffrey Epstein have demanded accountability. For a while, it seemed like they would achieve it.

Ghislaine Maxwell, the financier’s one-time partner, was convicted of human trafficking four years ago for her role in the late financier’s sexual abuse of teen girls – and sentenced to two decades behind bars.

At the same time, banks that had worked with Epstein, although not admitting wrongdoing, paid substantial sums in settlements to survivors. Former President Trump even made disclosing the Epstein investigative files part of his campaign platform, and reiterated on his promise to do so early this year.

Ultimately, Trump’s justice department did not release these records, and his government has become embroiled in reports about social ties between him and Epstein. Assurances from lawmakers 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 – regardless of their outcome.

Legal Actions Aim at Major Banks

These lawsuits, filed by an anonymous plaintiff against Bank of America and the Bank of New York Mellon (BNY), allege that these banking giants illicitly enabled Epstein’s sex trafficking. The suits are led by Sigrid S McCawley, of Boies Schiller Flexner, and Brad Edwards of his legal practice, who have consistently advocated for survivors of Epstein’s abuse.

“The financier carried out these offenses by means of not only his own vast fortune and power, but through financial backing and financial support from both individuals and institutions, including the bank,” the legal filing claims. “Egregiously, the institution had a abundance of knowledge regarding Epstein’s sex trafficking operation but chose profit over safeguarding those harmed.”

The Bank of America suit mirrors these claims, asserting the institution “knowingly provided the monetary resources and the appearance of respectability for Epstein and his accomplices to fuel their international sex trafficking organization under the pretext of legal commercial dealings”. The legal action also said Bank of America neglected to file suspicious activity reports.

Attorneys Offer Perspectives on Legal Hurdles

Longtime attorneys who commented on the situation said establishing liability would be difficult. But they also noted potential results which could offer comfort to plaintiffs or release of previously hidden details.

Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor who founded a legal firm, said proof has to show that an bank’s conduct 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 answers and legal redress 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 case, that would translate to “but for the bank’s conduct, the victim maybe wouldn’t have been exploited”, the lawyer explained.

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 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 decisive element? I don’t know.”

Regardless of legal responsibility, such lawsuits could serve as a warning that associations with those accused of wrongdoing can have negative consequences for them.

“It represents a reputational disaster,” he said. If the financial institutions try to get these cases thrown out and are unsuccessful, Rahmani expects a quick resolution. “No one wants to go litigate any of the legal matters tied to Epstein.”

Eric Faddis, a trial attorney and principal of the legal practice his firm and former prosecutor, said corporations can be liable. In this scenario, “if the institutions bear fault is going to hinge, in part, on their level of awareness, if they were informed of claimed misconduct or illegal acts”, and somehow 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 sex-trafficking scheme. The institutions would probably not be privy to the details of claims,” the lawyer said. While Epstein’s Florida conviction was known, “it’s not illegal for a bank to have a client who’s an unsavory person”.

“It is illegal for a financial firm to somehow be involved in the illegal actions of a client, 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

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

“These cases may uncover additional details about the continuing Epstein story,” Faddis 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 evidence-gathering phase, and that legal procedure often requires disclosure of information that was not formerly available.”

Attorney Brad 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 suffer from similar trafficking organizations – if our banks are not made responsible for the crucial part each performs, either in providing the necessary infrastructure for the criminal enterprise or recognizing the financial component of these offenses and putting an end to it.

Edwards continued: “Our prospects are significantly higher of making a real difference than Congress, because we understand the facts and history of the matter and are not driven by politics but rather by a genuine desire to make a real difference and to safeguard the victims, who have already endured immense pain.

“We approach these matters without any political agenda 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 declaration: “While legislators attempt to uncover how Jeffrey Epstein was able to conduct his criminal sex-trafficking enterprise for many years without detection, we are taking another important step forward toward legal resolution for victims.”

Bank Responses

Asked for comment on the legal complaint, BNY 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.”