🔗 Share this article

Over many years, survivors of the late financier Jeffrey Epstein have sought accountability. For a while, it appeared like they would achieve it.

Epstein’s former associate Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s ex-girlfriend, was found guilty of sex trafficking in a 2021 trial for her role in the late financier’s exploitation of underage females – and given to 20 years imprisonment.

At the same time, banks that had worked with Epstein, while not accepting fault, agreed to pay substantial sums in settlements to victims. Former President Trump even made disclosing the Epstein investigative files part of his election promises, and doubled down on his commitment to do so in recent months.

Ultimately, the administration’s Department of Justice did not release these records, and his administration has become embroiled in reports about personal connections between him and Epstein. Congressional promises to release files have stalled, due to partisan maneuvering and delays from federal authorities.

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

Legal Actions Aim at Major Banks

These lawsuits, submitted by an unnamed accuser against a major U.S. bank and the BNY Mellon, allege that these banking giants illicitly enabled Epstein’s trafficking ring. The cases are led by attorney Sigrid McCawley, of a prominent law firm, and Brad Edwards of Edwards Henderson, who have consistently advocated for survivors of Epstein’s abuse.

“The financier carried out these offenses by means of not only his own vast fortune and influence, but through access to funding and monetary assistance from both individuals and institutions, including the bank,” the legal filing claims. “Shockingly, BNY had a abundance of knowledge regarding Epstein’s trafficking network but chose profit over safeguarding those harmed.”

The complaint against Bank of America echoes these allegations, 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 guise of legal commercial dealings”. The suit also said the bank neglected to file suspicious activity reports.

Legal Experts Offer Perspectives on Legal Hurdles

Longtime attorneys who spoke to the matter said establishing liability would be difficult. But they also identified potential results which could provide solace to plaintiffs or disclosure of previously hidden details.

Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor who founded West Coast Trial lawyers, said proof has to show that an institution’s actions resulted in harm.

“In my view, the case faces significant obstacles – and obviously I am on the side of the victims, and I want them to get explanations and criminal justice and financial recovery,” the attorney 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 causation, which would mean “if not for the bank’s actions, the harm wouldn’t have occurred”. In this case, 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 beyond a “but for” measure. “Is not just ‘but for’ causation. It also has to be a significant element: that is the legal test. So any improper behavior there was, if there was any misconduct … the bank’s actions has to have been a key contributor in leading to the plaintiff harm.

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

Liability aside, such lawsuits could serve as a warning that associations with those involved in alleged crimes can have negative consequences for them.

“It’s a PR nightmare,” he said. If the financial institutions try to get these suits thrown out and fail, the attorney expects a swift settlement. “No party desires to pursue any of the legal matters tied to Epstein.”

Eric Faddis, a litigator and principal of the Colorado law firm his firm and ex-government lawyer, said companies can be liable. 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 criminal wrongdoing”, and in some way provided assistance to Epstein.

“But even then, I think it’s going to be difficult to effectively connect the banks into some kind of trafficking operation. The institutions would probably not be privy to the particulars of allegations,” Faddis said. While Epstein’s Florida conviction was public, “there’s no law against for a financial institution to have a client who’s an disreputable individual”.

“It is illegal for a bank to somehow be complicit in the illegal actions of a client, but those two issues are very different, and so I think that it’s going to be a difficult case against the institutions.”

Possible Advantages for Survivors

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

“These cases may uncover additional details about the continuing Epstein story,” the attorney said. “Even though there have been obstacles erected at every turn for individuals seeking this information, when there’s a lawsuit, there’s a discovery process, and that discovery process often requires release of information that was not formerly available.”

Edwards said in a statement that the lawsuits could have a deterrent effect and achieve what legislators have failed to do.

“The lawsuits are necessary for complete justice for the survivors of Jeffrey Epstein – as well as for future would-be victims who will suffer from comparable criminal networks – if our financial institutions are not held accountable for the essential role each performs, either in supplying the required framework for the criminal enterprise or recognizing the monetary aspect of these crimes and putting an end to it.

Edwards continued: “Our prospects are significantly higher of effecting meaningful change than Congress, because we know the facts and background of the matter and are not motivated by politics but rather by a sincere intention to create substantial impact and to safeguard the victims, who have already suffered tremendously.

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

Attorney Sigrid McCawley said in a statement: “While legislators attempt to uncover how the financier was able to conduct his illegal trafficking operation for decades without detection, we are taking another important step forward toward justice for victims.”

Bank Responses

When requested for a statement on the legal complaint, 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 case.”