🔗 Share this article

Over many years, victims of the late financier Jeffrey Epstein have sought justice. For a while, it seemed like they would achieve it.

Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s ex-girlfriend, was found guilty of human trafficking four years ago for her involvement in the deceased billionaire’s exploitation of underage females – and sentenced to two decades behind bars.

At the same time, banks that had done business with Epstein, while not admitting wrongdoing, agreed to pay substantial sums in agreements to survivors. Donald Trump even made disclosing the documents related to the Epstein probe part of his campaign platform, and doubled down on his commitment to do so early this year.

In the end, the administration’s Department of Justice did not make public these files, and his administration has become embroiled in allegations about social ties between him and Epstein. Assurances from lawmakers to release files have stalled, due to partisan maneuvering and delays from federal authorities.

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

Lawsuits Target Leading Financial Institutions

The legal complaints, submitted by an anonymous plaintiff against Bank of America and the BNY Mellon, claim that these financial powerhouses illicitly enabled Epstein’s trafficking ring. The suits are led by attorney Sigrid McCawley, of Boies Schiller Flexner, and Brad Edwards of Edwards Henderson, 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 organizations, including the bank,” the legal filing claims. “Shockingly, BNY had a plethora of information regarding Epstein’s trafficking network but opted for financial gain over protecting the victims.”

The complaint against Bank of America mirrors these claims, asserting the institution “knowingly provided the monetary resources and the veneer of institutional legitimacy for Epstein and his accomplices to support their international sex trafficking organization under the pretext of non-criminal business activities”. The legal action also said Bank of America neglected to file mandatory financial alerts.

Attorneys Offer Perspectives on Case Challenges

Longtime attorneys who spoke to the situation said establishing liability would be difficult. But they also noted potential results which could offer comfort to plaintiffs or disclosure of long-sought information.

Attorney Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor who founded West Coast Trial lawyers, said evidence has to show that an bank’s conduct led to harm.

“In my view, the case faces significant obstacles – and clearly I am on the side of the survivors, and I want them to get answers and criminal justice and compensation,” the attorney said. Certain allegations might be too tangential from a legal standpoint.

“The case hinges on proof,” he 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 instance, that would boil down to “absent the institution’s involvement, the survivor maybe wouldn’t have been trafficked”, Rahmani clarified.

A lawyer 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 legal test. 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 plaintiff harm.

“By engaging in a business relationship with Epstein, is that a substantial factor? 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 thrown out and fail, the attorney expects a swift settlement. “No one wants to go litigate any of the legal matters tied to Epstein.”

Eric Faddis, a litigator and founder of the legal practice his firm and former prosecutor, said companies 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 claimed misconduct or criminal wrongdoing”, and somehow provided assistance to Epstein.

“But even then, I think it’s going to be difficult to effectively connect the banks into some kind of sex-trafficking scheme. The institutions would likely not be privy to the details of allegations,” Faddis said. While the financier’s prior legal case was known, “it’s not illegal for a bank to have a client who’s an disreputable individual”.

“It is illegal for a financial firm to somehow be involved in the criminal activity of a client, but those two issues are distinct, and so I think that it’s going to be a tough lawsuit against the banks.”

Potential Benefits for Survivors

That said, important aspects of the litigation could help those affected by Epstein.

“These cases may uncover additional details about the continuing Epstein story,” the attorney said. “Despite the fact that there have been sort of walls put up at every turn for folks seeking this data, when there’s a lawsuit, there’s a discovery process, and that discovery process often requires release of information that was not previously public.”

Attorney Brad Edwards said in a statement that the suits could have a preventive impact and accomplish what lawmakers have been unable to do.

“Legal actions are essential for full accountability for the victims of the financier – as well as for future would-be victims who will suffer from similar trafficking organizations – if our banks are not made responsible for the crucial part each plays, either in providing the necessary infrastructure for the criminal enterprise or recognizing the financial component of these crimes and putting an end to it.

Edwards continued: “We have a far better chance of making a real difference than Congress, because we understand the details and background of the matter 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 endured immense pain.

“Our handling of these issues without any partisan motives and thus will not be swayed by shutdowns, shielding influential figures, or the other embarrassing partisan gamesmanship you and the rest of the world have had to watch unfold recently.”

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

Institutional Reactions

Asked for comment on the lawsuit, the Bank of New York Mellon 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.”