🔗 Share this article

Over many years, victims of Jeffrey Epstein have sought justice. At one point, it seemed like they would get it.

Epstein’s former associate Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s ex-girlfriend, was convicted of sex trafficking four years ago for her involvement in the deceased billionaire’s sexual abuse of underage females – and sentenced to 20 years imprisonment.

At the same time, financial firms that had done business with Epstein, while not accepting fault, paid hundreds of millions in settlements to survivors. Donald Trump even made releasing the Epstein investigative files part of his election promises, and reiterated on his commitment to do so in recent months.

Ultimately, Trump’s justice department did not release these records, and his administration has become involved in allegations about social ties between him and Epstein. Congressional promises to release files have lagged, due to partisan maneuvering and delays from federal authorities.

But recent legal actions could provide clarity on Epstein’s activities amid the deadlock – irrespective of their result.

Lawsuits Aim at Major Banks

These lawsuits, filed by an unnamed accuser against Bank of America and the Bank of New York Mellon (BNY), claim that these financial powerhouses illicitly enabled Epstein’s sex trafficking. The suits are helmed by attorney Sigrid McCawley, of a prominent law firm, and lawyer Brad Edwards of Edwards Henderson, who have long represented survivors of Epstein’s abuse.

“The financier carried out these offenses by means of not only his own extraordinary wealth and power, but through financial backing and financial support from both private parties and organizations, including the bank,” one lawsuit claims. “Egregiously, BNY had a abundance of knowledge regarding Epstein’s trafficking network but opted for financial gain over protecting the victims.”

The Bank of America suit echoes these allegations, asserting the institution “knowingly provided the financial support and the veneer of institutional legitimacy for Epstein and his co-conspirators to support their global trafficking enterprise under the guise of non-criminal business activities”. The legal action also said the bank failed to file suspicious activity reports.

Legal Experts Offer Perspectives on Legal Hurdles

Experienced lawyers who spoke to the matter said proving such a case would be difficult. But they also identified possible outcomes which could provide solace to plaintiffs or disclosure of long-sought information.

Neama Rahmani, a ex-government lawyer who established a legal firm, said proof has to show that an institution’s actions 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 legal redress and financial recovery,” Rahmani said. Certain allegations might be not directly related from a juridical perspective.

“The case hinges on proof,” he said. A lawyer 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 boil down to “but for the bank’s conduct, the survivor maybe wouldn’t have been exploited”, 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 whatever misconduct there was, if there was any misconduct … the bank’s actions has to have been a key contributor in causing the victim’s suffering.

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

Liability aside, such lawsuits could serve as a warning that relationships with those involved in alleged crimes can have damaging implications for them.

“It represents a reputational disaster,” Rahmani noted. If the financial institutions try to get these suits dismissed and fail, Rahmani expects a swift settlement. “No one wants to go litigate any of the Epstein-related cases.”

Attorney Eric Faddis, a litigator and founder of the legal practice Varner Faddis and former prosecutor, said corporations can be responsible. In this situation, “whether the banks have liability is going to depend, in part, on their level of awareness, whether they had any knowledge of alleged abuse or illegal acts”, and somehow offered support to Epstein.

“But even then, I think it’s going to be difficult to sort of loop the banks into some kind of trafficking operation. The institutions would likely not be aware of the particulars of claims,” Faddis said. While Epstein’s Florida conviction was public, “it’s not illegal for a bank to have a customer who’s an unsavory person”.

“It is illegal for a financial firm to in any way be involved in the criminal activity of a customer, but those two issues are very different, and so I think that it’s going to be a difficult case against the institutions.”

Potential Benefits for Victims

That said, important aspects of the legal proceedings could assist those affected by Epstein.

“These cases may uncover additional details about the continuing Epstein story,” Faddis said. “Despite the fact that there have been sort of walls put up 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 requires disclosure of materials that was not formerly available.”

Edwards said in a statement that the suits could have a deterrent effect and accomplish what lawmakers 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 performs, either in supplying the necessary infrastructure for the criminal enterprise or recognizing the monetary aspect of these offenses and stopping it.

He added: “We have a far better chance of making a real difference than Congress, because we understand the facts and history of the case and are not motivated by politics but rather by a genuine desire to make a real difference and to safeguard the survivors, who have already endured immense pain.

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

McCawley said in a declaration: “As Congress works toward unraveling how the financier was able to orchestrate his illegal trafficking operation for decades without detection, we are taking another important step forward toward justice for survivors.”

Institutional Reactions

When requested for a statement on the legal complaint, BNY said: “The allegations in the case are baseless, and we will strongly contest against it.”

The bank’s response likewise stated: “We intend to firmly protect our interests in this matter.”