🔗 Share this article

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

Epstein’s former associate Ghislaine Maxwell, the financier’s one-time partner, was found guilty of human trafficking in a 2021 trial for her involvement in the deceased billionaire’s exploitation of teen girls – and sentenced to 20 years imprisonment.

Meanwhile, financial firms that had worked with Epstein, while not accepting fault, paid substantial sums in agreements to survivors. Donald Trump even made releasing the documents related to the Epstein probe part of his election promises, and doubled down on his promise to do so in recent months.

Ultimately, Trump’s justice department did not make public these files, and his administration has become embroiled in reports about personal connections between him and Epstein. Assurances from lawmakers to release files have stalled, due to partisan maneuvering and delays from federal authorities.

But recent legal actions could shed light on Epstein’s operations amid the stalemate – regardless of their result.

Lawsuits Target Leading Financial Institutions

These lawsuits, filed by an anonymous plaintiff against Bank of America and the BNY Mellon, claim that these banking giants illicitly enabled Epstein’s trafficking ring. The suits are helmed by attorney Sigrid McCawley, of a prominent law firm, and Brad Edwards of Edwards Henderson, who have consistently advocated for Epstein victims.

“Epstein committed these crimes by means of not only his own vast fortune and power, but through access to funding and financial support from both private parties and institutions, including the bank,” one lawsuit states. “Egregiously, BNY had a plethora of information regarding Epstein’s sex trafficking operation but chose profit over safeguarding those harmed.”

The Bank of America suit echoes these allegations, declaring the institution “knowingly provided the financial support and the appearance of respectability for Epstein and his co-conspirators to support their international sex trafficking organization under the pretext of legal commercial dealings”. The legal action also said the bank failed to file suspicious activity reports.

Legal Experts Offer Perspectives on Legal Hurdles

Longtime attorneys who spoke to the matter said proving such a case would be challenging. But they also noted potential results which could provide solace to accusers or release of long-sought information.

Neama Rahmani, a ex-government lawyer who founded a legal firm, said evidence has to show that an bank’s conduct led to 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 answers and criminal justice and financial recovery,” Rahmani said. Certain allegations might be too tangential from a juridical perspective.

“The case hinges on proof,” Rahmani said. A lawyer would need to prove causation, which would mean “but for the defendant’s conduct, the injury wouldn’t have occurred”. In this instance, that would translate to “but for the bank’s conduct, the survivor maybe wouldn’t have been exploited”, the lawyer clarified.

A lawyer would also have to go further than a “but for” measure. “Is not just ‘but for’ causation. It also has to be a substantial factor: that is the legal test. So any improper behavior there was, if there was any wrongdoing … the bank’s actions has to have been a key contributor in leading to the victim’s suffering.

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

Liability aside, suits like this could put institutions on notice that relationships with those accused of wrongdoing can have damaging implications for them.

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

Eric Faddis, a trial attorney and founder of the Colorado law firm Varner Faddis and ex-government lawyer, said corporations can be responsible. In this scenario, “whether the banks have liability is going to depend, in part, on their level of awareness, if they were informed of claimed misconduct or illegal acts”, and somehow provided assistance 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 banks would likely not be aware of the particulars of claims,” the lawyer said. While the financier’s prior legal case was public, “there’s no law against for a bank to have a client who’s an disreputable individual”.

“However, it is unlawful for a bank to in any way be complicit 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 institutions.”

Potential Benefits for Survivors

Nevertheless, important aspects of the legal proceedings could help those affected by Epstein.

“The lawsuits have the potential to reveal more information about the continuing Epstein story,” Faddis said. “Even though there have been obstacles erected at every turn for folks seeking this information, when there’s a lawsuit, there’s a evidence-gathering phase, and that legal procedure often mandates release of information that was not previously public.”

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

“Legal actions are essential for full accountability for the survivors of Jeffrey Epstein – as well as for potential targets who will suffer from comparable criminal networks – if our financial institutions are not made responsible for the essential role each performs, either in supplying the necessary infrastructure for the criminal enterprise or recognizing the monetary aspect of these crimes 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 driven by partisan interests 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 partisan motives and thus cannot be deterred by shutdowns, 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: “As Congress works toward unraveling how Jeffrey Epstein was able to conduct his criminal sex-trafficking enterprise for decades without detection, we are taking a further significant action forward toward legal resolution for victims.”

Institutional Reactions

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 intend to firmly protect our interests in this case.”