🔗 Share this article

For years, survivors of Jeffrey Epstein have sought justice. For a while, it appeared like they would get it.

Epstein’s former associate Ghislaine Maxwell, the financier’s one-time partner, was found guilty of human trafficking four years ago for her role in the late financier’s sexual abuse of underage females – and given to two decades behind bars.

Meanwhile, banks that had done business with Epstein, while not admitting wrongdoing, agreed to pay hundreds of millions in agreements 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 early this year.

In the end, Trump’s justice department did not make public these files, and his administration has become embroiled in allegations about personal connections between him and Epstein. Assurances from lawmakers to release files have stalled, due to political jockeying and justice department foot-dragging.

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

Lawsuits Aim at Leading Financial Institutions

The legal complaints, filed by an unnamed accuser against Bank of America and the BNY Mellon, allege that these financial powerhouses unlawfully facilitated Epstein’s sex trafficking. The suits are led by attorney Sigrid McCawley, of a prominent law firm, 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 power, but through access to funding and financial support from both private parties and organizations, including BNY,” the legal filing states. “Shockingly, BNY had a abundance of knowledge regarding Epstein’s sex trafficking operation but chose profit over safeguarding those harmed.”

The complaint against Bank of America mirrors these claims, asserting the institution “deliberately supplied the financial support and the veneer of institutional legitimacy for Epstein and his accomplices to fuel their global trafficking enterprise under the pretext of non-criminal business activities”. The legal action also said the bank failed to file mandatory financial alerts.

Attorneys Offer Perspectives on Legal Hurdles

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

Neama Rahmani, a ex-government lawyer who founded West Coast Trial lawyers, said evidence has to show that an institution’s actions led to 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 financial recovery,” Rahmani said. Certain allegations might be not directly related from a legal standpoint.

“The case hinges on proof,” Rahmani said. A lawyer would need to prove cause and effect, which would mean “but for the defendant’s conduct, the harm wouldn’t have happened”. In this case, that would translate to “absent the institution’s involvement, the victim maybe wouldn’t have been exploited”, Rahmani clarified.

An attorney would also have to go beyond a “but for” measure. “It’s not solely about indirect cause. It also has to be a substantial factor: that is the legal test. So any improper behavior there was, if there was any misconduct … the defendant’s misconduct 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.”

Regardless of legal responsibility, suits like this could put institutions on notice that relationships 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 quick resolution. “No party desires to pursue any of the Epstein-related cases.”

Eric Faddis, a litigator and principal of the legal practice his firm and former prosecutor, said corporations can be responsible. In this scenario, “whether the banks have liability is going to hinge, in part, on what the banks knew, whether they had any knowledge of claimed misconduct or illegal acts”, and somehow offered support to Epstein.

“However, even in that case, I think it’s going to be hard to sort of loop the banks into some kind of sex-trafficking scheme. The institutions would likely not be aware of the details of allegations,” the lawyer said. While Epstein’s Florida conviction was known, “it’s not illegal for a financial institution to have a client who’s an unsavory person”.

“However, it is unlawful for a financial firm to somehow be involved in the illegal actions of a customer, but those two issues are very different, and so I think that it’s going to be a tough lawsuit against the institutions.”

Potential Benefits for Victims

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

“These cases may uncover additional details about the continuing Epstein story,” Faddis said. “Even though there have been sort of walls put up at every turn for individuals seeking this information, when there’s a lawsuit, there’s a evidence-gathering phase, and that legal procedure often mandates disclosure of materials that was not formerly available.”

Edwards said in a statement that the lawsuits 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 future would-be victims who will be harmed from comparable criminal networks – if our financial institutions are not held accountable for the essential role each plays, either in providing the required framework for the illegal operation 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 background of the case and are not driven by politics but rather by a sincere intention to create substantial impact and to protect the victims, who have already suffered tremendously.

“We approach these matters without any political agenda and thus will not be swayed by obstructions, protecting wealthy politically connected individuals, or the other shameful political maneuvering you and the rest of the world have had to observe recently.”

McCawley said in a statement: “While legislators attempt to uncover how Jeffrey Epstein was able to conduct his criminal sex-trafficking enterprise for decades without being caught, we are taking a further significant action forward toward legal resolution for victims.”

Institutional Reactions

Asked for comment on the legal complaint, BNY said: “The allegations in the case are baseless, and we will vigorously defend against it.”

Bank of America’s statement similarly remarked: “We will vigorously defend ourselves in this matter.”