🔗 Share this article

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

Epstein’s former associate Ghislaine Maxwell, the financier’s one-time partner, was convicted of human trafficking four years ago for her role 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, while not accepting fault, paid substantial sums in settlements to victims. Donald Trump even made releasing the documents related to the Epstein probe part of his campaign platform, and doubled down on his commitment to do so in recent months.

Ultimately, the administration’s Department of Justice did not release these records, 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.

However recent legal actions could shed light on Epstein’s activities amid the deadlock – regardless of their result.

Lawsuits Target Leading Financial Institutions

These lawsuits, filed by an unnamed accuser against a major U.S. bank and the Bank of New York Mellon (BNY), allege that these banking giants unlawfully facilitated Epstein’s sex trafficking. 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.

“Epstein committed these crimes by means of not only his own vast fortune and power, but through financial backing and monetary assistance from both private parties and institutions, including BNY,” the legal filing claims. “Egregiously, the institution had a plethora of information regarding Epstein’s trafficking network but opted for financial gain over safeguarding those harmed.”

The complaint against Bank of America mirrors these claims, declaring the institution “knowingly provided the monetary resources and the appearance of respectability for Epstein and his co-conspirators to fuel their global trafficking enterprise under the pretext of legal commercial dealings”. The suit also said Bank of America neglected to file mandatory financial alerts.

Legal Experts Offer Perspectives on Legal Hurdles

Experienced lawyers who commented on the matter said establishing liability would be challenging. But they also noted possible outcomes which could provide solace to accusers or release of long-sought information.

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.

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

A lawyer would also have to go beyond a “but for” measure. “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 substantial factor in causing the plaintiff harm.

“Through maintaining financial ties to 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 represents a reputational disaster,” Rahmani noted. If the financial institutions try to get these suits thrown out and fail, Rahmani anticipates a quick resolution. “No one wants to go litigate any of the legal matters tied to Epstein.”

Eric Faddis, a trial attorney and founder of the Colorado law firm Varner Faddis and former prosecutor, said corporations can be responsible. In this scenario, “if the institutions bear fault is going to hinge, 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.

“However, even in that case, I think it’s going to be difficult to effectively connect the financial entities into some kind of trafficking operation. The institutions would probably not be aware of the details of claims,” Faddis said. While Epstein’s Florida conviction was public, “there’s no law against for a financial institution to have a customer who’s an unsavory person”.

“It is illegal for a bank to somehow be complicit in the criminal activity 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 Victims

Nevertheless, important aspects of the litigation could help Epstein survivors.

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

Attorney Brad Edwards said in a comment that the lawsuits could have a preventive impact and achieve what lawmakers have been unable to do.

“Legal actions are essential for full accountability for the victims of the financier – as well as for potential targets who will suffer from comparable criminal networks – if our banks are not made responsible for the essential role each performs, either in providing the necessary infrastructure for the illegal operation or recognizing the financial component of these crimes and putting an end to it.

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

“Our handling of these issues without any partisan motives and thus will not be swayed by shutdowns, protecting wealthy politically connected individuals, or the other embarrassing partisan gamesmanship you and the rest of the world have had to watch unfold recently.”

Attorney Sigrid 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 being caught, we are taking another important step forward toward justice for victims.”

Institutional Reactions

When requested for a statement 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 will vigorously defend ourselves in this case.”