🔗 Share this article

Over many years, victims of Jeffrey Epstein have sought accountability. For a while, it seemed like they would get it.

Epstein’s former associate Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s ex-girlfriend, was convicted of sex trafficking in a 2021 trial for her involvement in the deceased billionaire’s sexual abuse of teen girls – and sentenced to 20 years imprisonment.

At the same time, banks that had worked with Epstein, while not admitting wrongdoing, agreed to pay hundreds of millions in settlements to survivors. Former President Trump even made releasing the documents related to the Epstein probe part of his campaign platform, and reiterated on his promise to do so early this year.

In the end, the administration’s Department of Justice did not release these records, and his administration has become involved in reports about social ties between him and Epstein. Congressional promises to release files have stalled, due to partisan maneuvering and delays from federal authorities.

But two new lawsuits could shed light on Epstein’s activities amid the stalemate – regardless of their result.

Legal Actions Target Major Banks

The legal complaints, filed by an unnamed accuser against a major U.S. bank and the Bank of New York Mellon (BNY), allege that these financial powerhouses illicitly enabled Epstein’s trafficking ring. The cases are led 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 monetary assistance from both private parties and institutions, including the bank,” one lawsuit states. “Egregiously, BNY had a abundance of knowledge regarding Epstein’s sex trafficking operation but opted for financial gain over safeguarding those harmed.”

The Bank of America suit mirrors these claims, declaring the institution “deliberately supplied the financial support and the appearance of respectability for Epstein and his accomplices to support their international sex trafficking organization under the guise of non-criminal business activities”. The legal action also said the bank failed to file mandatory financial alerts.

Legal Experts Weigh In on Case Challenges

Longtime attorneys who spoke to the situation said establishing liability would be challenging. But they also noted potential results which could provide solace to accusers or disclosure of previously hidden details.

Neama Rahmani, a ex-government lawyer who founded West Coast Trial lawyers, said evidence 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 criminal justice and financial recovery,” Rahmani said. Some claims might be too tangential from a juridical perspective.

“It all comes down to evidence,” he 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 “absent the institution’s involvement, 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 substantial factor: that is the standard. So any improper behavior there was, if there was any misconduct … the defendant’s misconduct has to have been a substantial factor 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 associations with those accused of wrongdoing can have negative consequences for them.

“It represents a reputational disaster,” Rahmani noted. If the banks try to get these suits dismissed and fail, Rahmani anticipates a swift settlement. “No one wants to go litigate any of the legal matters tied to Epstein.”

Eric Faddis, a trial attorney and founder of the legal practice his firm and former prosecutor, said corporations can be liable. In this situation, “whether the banks have liability is going to depend, in part, on what the banks knew, if they were informed of alleged abuse or criminal wrongdoing”, and in some way provided assistance to Epstein.

“However, even in that case, I think it’s going to be difficult to sort of loop the financial entities into some kind of trafficking operation. The banks would probably not be aware of the details of allegations,” the lawyer said. While the financier’s prior legal case was public, “there’s no law against for a financial institution to have a client who’s an unsavory person”.

“It is illegal for a bank to somehow be involved in the criminal activity of a client, but these aspects are very different, and so I think that it’s going to be a tough lawsuit against the institutions.”

Potential Benefits for Survivors

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

“These cases may uncover additional details about the ongoing Epstein saga,” the attorney said. “Even though there have been obstacles erected at every turn for folks pursuing this information, when there’s a lawsuit, there’s a evidence-gathering phase, and that legal procedure often requires disclosure of information that was not formerly available.”

Edwards said in a statement that the suits could have a preventive impact and accomplish what legislators have failed to do.

“Legal actions are essential for full accountability for the victims of Jeffrey Epstein – as well as for potential targets who will suffer from similar trafficking organizations – if our financial institutions are not made responsible for the crucial part each plays, either in providing the required framework for the illegal operation or recognizing the monetary aspect of these crimes and putting an end to it.

He added: “Our prospects are significantly higher of effecting meaningful change than Congress, because we know the details and history of the case and are not driven by partisan interests but rather by a genuine desire to create substantial impact and to protect the survivors, who have already suffered tremendously.

“We approach these matters without any political agenda and thus cannot be deterred by shutdowns, shielding influential figures, or the other embarrassing partisan gamesmanship you and the rest of the world have had to observe recently.”

Attorney Sigrid McCawley said in a statement: “As Congress works toward unraveling how the financier was able to orchestrate his criminal sex-trafficking enterprise for many years without being caught, we are taking a further significant action forward toward legal resolution for victims.”

Institutional Reactions

Asked for comment on the lawsuit, the Bank of New York Mellon said: “The allegations in the case are baseless, and we will strongly contest against it.”

Bank of America’s statement similarly remarked: “We intend to firmly protect our interests in this matter.”