🔗 Share this article

For years, victims of Jeffrey Epstein have sought accountability. For a while, it seemed like they would get it.

Epstein’s former associate Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s ex-girlfriend, was convicted of human trafficking in a 2021 trial for her role in the late financier’s exploitation of teen girls – and sentenced to two decades behind bars.

At the same time, banks that had done business with Epstein, although not admitting wrongdoing, agreed to pay hundreds of millions in agreements to survivors. Donald Trump even made releasing the documents related to the Epstein probe part of his campaign platform, and doubled down on his promise to do so in recent months.

In the end, the administration’s Department of Justice did not make public these records, and his administration has become embroiled in reports about personal connections between him and Epstein. Congressional promises to disclose documents have lagged, due to partisan maneuvering and delays from federal authorities.

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

Legal Actions Aim at Leading Financial Institutions

The legal complaints, filed by an unnamed accuser against a major U.S. bank and the BNY Mellon, claim that these banking giants illicitly enabled Epstein’s sex trafficking. The cases are helmed by Sigrid S 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 extraordinary wealth and influence, but through financial backing and monetary assistance from both private parties and institutions, including the bank,” one lawsuit claims. “Egregiously, BNY had a plethora of information regarding Epstein’s sex trafficking operation but opted for financial gain over protecting the victims.”

The complaint against Bank of America mirrors these claims, asserting the institution “knowingly provided the financial support and the appearance of respectability for Epstein and his co-conspirators to fuel their global trafficking enterprise under the pretext of legal commercial dealings”. The suit also said the bank failed to file suspicious activity reports.

Attorneys Weigh In on Legal Hurdles

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

Attorney Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor who founded a legal firm, said evidence has to show that an institution’s actions led to 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 answers and criminal justice and compensation,” Rahmani said. Some claims 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 “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 victim maybe wouldn’t have been exploited”, Rahmani explained.

A lawyer 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 wrongdoing … the bank’s actions has to have been a substantial factor in leading to the victim’s suffering.

“By engaging in a business relationship with Epstein, is that a substantial factor? It’s uncertain.”

Regardless of legal responsibility, such lawsuits could put institutions on notice that relationships with those accused of wrongdoing can have damaging implications for them.

“It’s a PR nightmare,” he said. If the financial institutions try to get these cases thrown out and fail, the attorney expects a swift settlement. “No one wants to go litigate any of the legal matters tied to Epstein.”

Attorney Eric Faddis, a litigator and founder of the legal practice his firm and former prosecutor, said corporations can be responsible. In this situation, “whether the banks have liability is going to depend, in part, on their level of awareness, 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 difficult to sort of loop the banks into some kind of sex-trafficking scheme. The banks would probably not be aware of the details of allegations,” Faddis said. While the financier’s prior legal case was known, “there’s no law against for a bank to have a client who’s an disreputable individual”.

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

Possible Advantages for Survivors

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

“The lawsuits have the potential to reveal more information about the continuing Epstein story,” the attorney said. “Even though there have been obstacles erected at every turn for folks seeking this information, when there’s a lawsuit, there’s a evidence-gathering phase, and that discovery process often mandates release of information that was not formerly available.”

Edwards said in a comment that the lawsuits could have a deterrent effect and accomplish what lawmakers have been unable to do.

“Legal actions are essential for full accountability for the survivors of Jeffrey Epstein – as well as for potential targets who will suffer 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 criminal enterprise or recognizing the monetary aspect of these offenses and stopping it.

Edwards continued: “We have a far better chance of making a real difference than lawmakers, because we understand the facts and background of the case and are not motivated by politics but rather by a genuine desire to make a real difference and to protect the survivors, who have already suffered tremendously.

“We approach these matters without any political agenda and thus will not be swayed by obstructions, shielding influential figures, 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 the financier was able to orchestrate his illegal trafficking operation for many years without detection, we are taking a further significant action forward toward legal resolution for survivors.”

Bank Responses

Asked for comment on the legal complaint, the Bank of New York Mellon said: “The claims in the lawsuit are meritless, and we will vigorously defend against it.”

Bank of America’s statement likewise stated: “We intend to firmly protect our interests in this case.”