🔗 Share this article

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

Epstein’s former associate Ghislaine Maxwell, the financier’s one-time partner, was convicted of human trafficking in a 2021 trial for her involvement in the late financier’s exploitation of underage females – and given to two decades behind bars.

Meanwhile, banks that had worked with Epstein, while not accepting fault, paid hundreds of millions in agreements to victims. Donald Trump even made disclosing the documents related to the Epstein probe part of his campaign platform, and doubled down on his promise to do so in recent months.

Ultimately, Trump’s justice department did not make public these files, and his government has become involved in reports about social ties between him and Epstein. Congressional promises to disclose documents have lagged, due to political jockeying and justice department foot-dragging.

But two new lawsuits could provide clarity on Epstein’s activities amid the deadlock – regardless of their outcome.

Legal Actions Aim at Leading Financial Institutions

The legal complaints, filed by an anonymous plaintiff against Bank of America and the BNY Mellon, allege that these banking giants unlawfully facilitated Epstein’s trafficking ring. The suits are helmed by Sigrid S McCawley, of Boies Schiller Flexner, 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 power, but through access to funding and monetary assistance from both private parties and organizations, including the bank,” the legal filing states. “Egregiously, BNY had a plethora of information regarding Epstein’s sex trafficking operation but chose profit over protecting the victims.”

The Bank of America suit mirrors these claims, declaring the institution “deliberately supplied the financial support and the veneer of institutional legitimacy for Epstein and his co-conspirators to fuel their international sex trafficking organization under the guise of non-criminal business activities”. The suit also said the bank neglected to file suspicious activity reports.

Attorneys Offer Perspectives on Case Challenges

Experienced lawyers who spoke to the matter said establishing liability would be challenging. But they also identified potential results which could offer comfort to plaintiffs or release of long-sought information.

Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor who founded a legal firm, said proof 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 survivors, and I want them to get answers and criminal justice and compensation,” Rahmani said. Some claims might be not directly related from a legal standpoint.

“It all comes down to evidence,” Rahmani said. A attorney would need to prove causation, which would mean “if not for the bank’s actions, the harm wouldn’t have occurred”. In this instance, that would boil down to “absent the institution’s involvement, the survivor maybe wouldn’t have been exploited”, the lawyer clarified.

A lawyer would also have to go further than a “but for” measure. “It’s not solely about indirect cause. It also has to be a substantial factor: that is the standard. So whatever misconduct there was, if there was any wrongdoing … the defendant’s misconduct has to have been a key contributor in causing the plaintiff harm.

“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 involved in alleged crimes can have negative consequences for them.

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

Eric Faddis, a trial attorney and founder of the Colorado law firm Varner Faddis and former prosecutor, said corporations can be responsible. In this situation, “whether the banks have liability is going to hinge, in part, on what the banks knew, if they were informed of alleged abuse or illegal acts”, and somehow offered support to Epstein.

“But even then, I think it’s going to be hard to effectively connect the financial entities into some kind of trafficking operation. The institutions would likely not be privy to the details of claims,” 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 in any way be involved in the illegal actions of a customer, but these aspects are very different, and so I think that it’s going to be a tough lawsuit against the banks.”

Possible Advantages for Victims

That said, key elements of the litigation could help those affected by Epstein.

“The lawsuits have the potential to reveal more information about the ongoing Epstein saga,” Faddis said. “Despite the fact that there have been sort of walls put up at every turn for individuals pursuing this information, when there’s a legal action, there’s a evidence-gathering phase, and that discovery process often mandates disclosure of materials that was not formerly available.”

Edwards said in a comment that the suits could have a preventive impact and achieve what lawmakers have failed to do.

“Legal actions are essential for full accountability for the survivors of the financier – as well as for potential targets who will be harmed from comparable criminal networks – if our financial institutions are not held accountable for the crucial part each performs, 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 making a real difference than Congress, because we know the details and history of the matter and are not driven by partisan interests but rather by a sincere intention to make a real difference and to safeguard the survivors, who have already suffered tremendously.

“We approach these matters without any political agenda and thus cannot be deterred by shutdowns, protecting wealthy politically connected individuals, or the other shameful political maneuvering 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 conduct his criminal sex-trafficking enterprise for decades without being caught, we are taking another important step forward toward legal resolution for survivors.”

Institutional Reactions

Asked for comment on the lawsuit, BNY said: “The claims in the lawsuit are meritless, and we will strongly contest against it.”

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