🔗 Share this article

Over many years, survivors of the late financier Jeffrey Epstein have sought justice. For a while, it appeared like they would get it.

Ghislaine Maxwell, the financier’s one-time partner, was convicted of human trafficking in a 2021 trial for her involvement in the deceased billionaire’s sexual abuse of teen girls – and sentenced to two decades behind bars.

At the same time, financial firms that had done business with Epstein, although not accepting fault, agreed to pay 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 in recent months.

Ultimately, Trump’s justice department did not make public these records, and his administration has become involved in allegations about social ties between him and Epstein. Congressional promises to release files have lagged, due to political jockeying and justice department foot-dragging.

However recent legal actions could provide clarity on Epstein’s activities amid the stalemate – irrespective of their outcome.

Lawsuits Target 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 banking giants unlawfully facilitated Epstein’s trafficking ring. The suits are led by attorney Sigrid McCawley, of a prominent law firm, and Brad Edwards of his legal practice, who have long represented survivors of Epstein’s abuse.

“The financier carried out these offenses 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 plethora of information regarding Epstein’s trafficking network but chose profit over protecting the victims.”

The complaint against Bank of America mirrors these claims, asserting the institution “deliberately supplied 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 legal commercial dealings”. The legal action also said Bank of America failed to file mandatory financial alerts.

Legal Experts Offer Perspectives on Case Challenges

Longtime attorneys who commented on the situation said establishing liability would be difficult. But they also identified potential results which could provide solace to plaintiffs or disclosure of long-sought information.

Neama Rahmani, a ex-government lawyer who established a legal firm, said evidence has to show that an bank’s conduct resulted in harm.

“In my view, the case faces significant obstacles – 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 not directly related from a legal standpoint.

“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 occurred”. In this instance, that would boil down to “but for the bank’s conduct, the survivor maybe wouldn’t have been trafficked”, the lawyer explained.

An attorney 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 wrongdoing … the bank’s actions has to have been a substantial factor in causing the victim’s suffering.

“Through maintaining financial ties to Epstein, is that a decisive element? I don’t know.”

Regardless of legal responsibility, suits like this could put institutions on notice that relationships with those involved in alleged crimes can have negative consequences for them.

“It’s a PR nightmare,” he said. If the financial institutions try to get these suits thrown out and are unsuccessful, Rahmani anticipates a swift settlement. “No party desires to pursue any of the Epstein-related cases.”

Attorney Eric Faddis, a trial attorney and founder of the Colorado law firm Varner Faddis and former prosecutor, said corporations can be liable. In this situation, “if the institutions bear fault is going to hinge, in part, on their level of awareness, if they were informed of alleged abuse or criminal wrongdoing”, and somehow provided assistance to Epstein.

“However, even in that case, I think it’s going to be difficult to effectively connect the financial entities into some kind of sex-trafficking scheme. The institutions would likely not be privy to the details of allegations,” the lawyer said. While Epstein’s Florida conviction 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 illegal actions of a client, but those two issues are very different, and so I think that it’s going to be a tough lawsuit against the banks.”

Possible Advantages for Survivors

Nevertheless, key elements of the legal proceedings could assist Epstein survivors.

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

Attorney Brad Edwards said in a comment that the suits could have a deterrent effect and accomplish what lawmakers have been unable to do.

“The lawsuits are necessary for complete justice for the survivors of the financier – as well as for future would-be victims who will suffer from comparable criminal networks – if our banks are not made responsible for the essential role each plays, either in providing the required framework for the illegal operation or identifying the monetary aspect of these offenses and stopping it.

He added: “We have a far better chance of effecting meaningful change than lawmakers, because we know the details and history of the matter and are not driven by partisan interests but rather by a sincere intention 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, 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 statement: “While legislators attempt to uncover how the financier was able to orchestrate his illegal trafficking operation for many years without detection, we are taking a further significant action forward toward legal resolution for victims.”

Bank Responses

Asked for comment on the legal complaint, the Bank of New York Mellon said: “The allegations in the case are baseless, and we will vigorously defend against it.”

The bank’s response likewise stated: “We intend to firmly protect our interests in this matter.”