🔗 Share this article

Over many years, survivors of the late financier Jeffrey Epstein have sought accountability. At one point, it appeared like they would achieve it.

Epstein’s former associate Ghislaine Maxwell, the financier’s one-time partner, was convicted of human trafficking four years ago for her involvement in the late financier’s sexual abuse of underage females – and given to 20 years imprisonment.

Meanwhile, financial firms that had done business with Epstein, while not admitting wrongdoing, paid substantial sums in settlements to survivors. Former President Trump even made releasing the documents related to the Epstein probe part of his election promises, 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 involved in allegations about personal connections between him and Epstein. Assurances from lawmakers to disclose documents have lagged, due to partisan maneuvering and delays from federal authorities.

But two new lawsuits could shed light on Epstein’s activities amid the deadlock – irrespective of their outcome.

Legal Actions Aim at Leading Financial Institutions

These lawsuits, submitted by an unnamed accuser against a major U.S. bank 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 lawyer 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 influence, but through access to funding 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 trafficking network but chose profit over protecting the victims.”

The complaint against Bank of America echoes these allegations, declaring the institution “knowingly provided the financial support and the veneer of institutional legitimacy for Epstein and his co-conspirators to fuel their international sex trafficking organization under the guise of non-criminal business activities”. The suit also said Bank of America neglected to file suspicious activity reports.

Legal Experts Weigh In on Case Challenges

Longtime attorneys who commented on the situation said establishing liability would be challenging. But they also noted possible outcomes which could provide solace to plaintiffs or disclosure of long-sought information.

Attorney Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor who established West Coast Trial lawyers, 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 criminal justice and compensation,” the attorney 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 causation, which would mean “if not for the bank’s actions, the injury wouldn’t have occurred”. In this case, that would translate to “but for the bank’s conduct, the victim maybe wouldn’t have been trafficked”, Rahmani clarified.

An attorney would also have to go beyond a basic causation test. “Is not just ‘but for’ causation. It also has to be a significant element: that is the legal test. So whatever misconduct there was, if there was any misconduct … the bank’s actions has to have been a key contributor in leading to the victim’s suffering.

“Through maintaining financial ties to Epstein, is that a decisive element? It’s uncertain.”

Liability aside, suits like this could put institutions on notice that associations 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 are unsuccessful, the attorney expects a swift settlement. “No party desires to pursue any of the legal matters tied to Epstein.”

Attorney Eric Faddis, a trial attorney and principal of the legal practice his firm and former prosecutor, 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 illegal acts”, and somehow provided assistance to Epstein.

“However, even in that case, I think it’s going to be hard to effectively connect the financial entities into some kind of trafficking operation. The institutions would probably not be privy to the details of claims,” the lawyer said. While the financier’s prior legal case was known, “it’s not illegal for a financial institution to have a client who’s an disreputable individual”.

“However, it is unlawful for a bank to in any way be complicit in the criminal activity of a client, but these aspects are very different, and so I think that it’s going to be a difficult case against the institutions.”

Possible Advantages for Victims

Nevertheless, important aspects of the legal proceedings could help Epstein survivors.

“The lawsuits have the potential to reveal more information about the ongoing Epstein saga,” the attorney said. “Even though there have been obstacles erected at every turn for folks pursuing this data, when there’s a lawsuit, there’s a discovery process, and that legal procedure often requires disclosure of information that was not formerly available.”

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 Jeffrey Epstein – as well as for potential targets who will suffer from comparable criminal networks – if our banks are not made responsible for the crucial part each plays, either in supplying the necessary infrastructure for the illegal operation or recognizing the monetary aspect of these crimes and putting an end to it.

Edwards continued: “Our prospects are significantly higher of effecting meaningful change than lawmakers, because we know the facts and background of the matter and are not driven by partisan interests but rather by a genuine desire to create substantial impact and to safeguard the survivors, who have already endured immense pain.

“Our handling of these issues without any partisan motives and thus cannot be deterred by obstructions, protecting wealthy politically connected individuals, or the other shameful political maneuvering 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 detection, we are taking another important step forward toward justice for survivors.”

Institutional Reactions

Asked for comment on the lawsuit, BNY 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.”