🔗 Share this article

For years, victims of Jeffrey Epstein have sought justice. At one point, it appeared like they would get it.

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

At the same time, financial firms that had worked with Epstein, while not accepting fault, paid hundreds of millions in agreements to survivors. Donald Trump even made releasing the documents related to the Epstein probe part of his election promises, and doubled down on his commitment to do so early this year.

In the end, Trump’s justice department did not release these records, and his administration has become involved in allegations about personal connections between him and Epstein. Assurances from lawmakers to disclose documents have lagged, due to political jockeying and delays from federal authorities.

However two new lawsuits could shed light on Epstein’s operations amid the deadlock – irrespective of their result.

Legal Actions Aim at Major Banks

The legal complaints, submitted by an anonymous plaintiff against a major U.S. bank and the BNY Mellon, allege that these financial powerhouses unlawfully facilitated Epstein’s trafficking ring. The cases are led by attorney Sigrid McCawley, of Boies Schiller Flexner, and lawyer Brad Edwards of Edwards Henderson, who have long represented survivors of Epstein’s abuse.

“Epstein committed these crimes by means of not only his own vast fortune and influence, but through financial backing and monetary assistance from both individuals and institutions, including BNY,” one lawsuit claims. “Shockingly, the institution had a abundance of knowledge regarding Epstein’s trafficking network but opted for financial gain over protecting the victims.”

The Bank of America suit mirrors these claims, declaring the institution “knowingly provided the financial support and the veneer of institutional legitimacy for Epstein and his accomplices to fuel their global trafficking enterprise under the pretext of legal commercial dealings”. The legal action also said Bank of America neglected to file suspicious activity reports.

Attorneys Offer Perspectives on Legal Hurdles

Experienced lawyers who spoke to the situation said proving such a case would be difficult. But they also noted possible outcomes which could offer comfort to plaintiffs or release of previously hidden details.

Attorney Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor who established West Coast Trial lawyers, said proof has to show that an bank’s conduct resulted in 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 financial recovery,” Rahmani said. Certain allegations might be too tangential from a juridical perspective.

“The case hinges on proof,” Rahmani said. A attorney would need to prove cause and effect, which would mean “if not for the bank’s actions, the injury wouldn’t have occurred”. In this case, that would boil down to “but for the bank’s conduct, the survivor maybe wouldn’t have been exploited”, Rahmani explained.

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 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 causing the victim’s suffering.

“By engaging in a business relationship with Epstein, is that a decisive element? I don’t know.”

Regardless of legal responsibility, suits like this could put institutions on notice that associations with those involved in alleged crimes can have damaging implications for them.

“It’s a PR nightmare,” Rahmani noted. If the financial institutions try to get these suits thrown out and fail, Rahmani anticipates a quick resolution. “No one wants to go litigate any of the Epstein-related cases.”

Attorney Eric Faddis, a trial attorney and principal of the legal practice his firm and ex-government lawyer, said corporations can be responsible. In this scenario, “whether the banks have liability is going to depend, in part, on what the banks knew, if they were informed of claimed misconduct or criminal wrongdoing”, and in some way offered support to Epstein.

“However, even in that case, I think it’s going to be hard to effectively connect the banks into some kind of trafficking operation. The institutions would likely not be privy to the particulars of claims,” Faddis said. While the financier’s prior legal case was known, “there’s no law against for a bank to have a customer who’s an disreputable individual”.

“It is illegal for a bank to in any way be complicit in the illegal actions of a client, but these aspects are very different, and so I think that it’s going to be a tough lawsuit against the institutions.”

Potential Benefits for Victims

That said, key elements of the legal proceedings could assist those affected by Epstein.

“The lawsuits have the potential to reveal more information 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 pursuing this information, when there’s a lawsuit, there’s a evidence-gathering phase, and that legal procedure often requires disclosure of information that was not formerly available.”

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

“Legal actions are essential for full accountability for the survivors 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 monetary aspect of these crimes and stopping it.

Edwards continued: “Our prospects are significantly higher 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 sincere intention to create substantial impact and to protect the survivors, who have already suffered tremendously.

“We approach these matters without any partisan motives 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 declaration: “As Congress works toward unraveling how the financier was able to conduct his criminal sex-trafficking enterprise for many years without detection, we are taking a further significant action forward toward legal resolution for victims.”

Bank Responses

Asked for comment 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 case.”