🔗 Share this article

For years, survivors of the late financier Jeffrey Epstein have sought accountability. At one point, it seemed like they would achieve 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 exploitation of teen girls – and given to 20 years imprisonment.

Meanwhile, financial firms that had worked with Epstein, while not accepting fault, agreed to pay substantial sums in settlements to victims. Former President Trump even made releasing the documents related to the Epstein probe part of his campaign platform, and reiterated on his commitment to do so in recent months.

In the end, 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 disclose documents have lagged, due to partisan maneuvering and justice department foot-dragging.

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

Lawsuits Aim at 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 suits are led by attorney Sigrid McCawley, of a prominent law firm, and Brad Edwards of his legal practice, who have long represented Epstein victims.

“Epstein committed these crimes by means of not only his own extraordinary wealth and influence, but through financial backing and monetary assistance from both private parties and institutions, including BNY,” the legal filing claims. “Egregiously, the institution had a abundance of knowledge regarding Epstein’s trafficking network but chose profit over protecting the victims.”

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 accomplices 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

Longtime attorneys who spoke to the matter said proving such a case would be difficult. But they also identified potential results which could provide solace to accusers or disclosure of previously hidden details.

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.

“I don’t think the lawsuit has much of a chance of success – and obviously I am on the side of the victims, and I want them to get answers and criminal justice and compensation,” Rahmani said. Certain allegations might be too tangential from a legal standpoint.

“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 victim maybe wouldn’t have been exploited”, Rahmani clarified.

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 any improper behavior there was, if there was any wrongdoing … the defendant’s misconduct has to have been a key contributor in causing the victim’s suffering.

“By engaging in a business relationship with Epstein, is that a decisive element? It’s uncertain.”

Regardless of legal responsibility, such lawsuits could serve as a warning that associations with those accused of wrongdoing can have damaging implications for them.

“It represents a reputational disaster,” Rahmani noted. If the banks try to get these suits dismissed and fail, Rahmani expects a quick resolution. “No party desires to pursue any of the Epstein-related cases.”

Attorney Eric Faddis, a trial attorney and principal of the Colorado law firm Varner Faddis and former prosecutor, said companies can be responsible. In this scenario, “if the institutions bear fault is going to depend, in part, on what the banks knew, whether they had any knowledge of claimed misconduct or criminal wrongdoing”, and in some way offered support to Epstein.

“But even then, I think it’s going to be hard to sort of loop the financial entities into some kind of sex-trafficking scheme. The institutions would probably not be aware of the details of claims,” the lawyer said. While the financier’s prior legal case was known, “there’s no law against for a bank to have a customer who’s an unsavory person”.

“However, it is unlawful for a financial firm to somehow 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 banks.”

Potential Benefits for Victims

That said, key elements of the litigation could help Epstein survivors.

“These cases may uncover additional details about the ongoing Epstein saga,” Faddis 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 release of materials that was not previously public.”

Attorney Brad Edwards said in a comment that the lawsuits could have a preventive impact and accomplish what legislators 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 plays, either in providing the required framework for the criminal enterprise or recognizing the financial component of these crimes and stopping it.

He added: “Our prospects are significantly higher of effecting meaningful change than Congress, because we understand the facts and history of the matter and are not motivated by partisan interests but rather by a sincere intention to make a real difference and to protect the victims, who have already suffered tremendously.

“Our handling of these issues without any political agenda 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 watch unfold recently.”

McCawley said in a statement: “While legislators attempt to uncover how the financier was able to conduct his criminal sex-trafficking enterprise for many years without being caught, we are taking another important step forward toward justice for survivors.”

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.”

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