🔗 Share this article

Over many years, victims of the late financier Jeffrey Epstein have demanded justice. At one point, it seemed like they would get it.

Epstein’s former associate Ghislaine Maxwell, the financier’s one-time partner, was convicted 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, banks that had done business with Epstein, although not admitting wrongdoing, paid substantial sums in agreements to victims. Former President Trump even made disclosing the Epstein investigative files part of his election promises, and reiterated on his commitment to do so early this year.

In the end, Trump’s justice department did not release these files, and his administration has become involved in reports about personal connections between him and Epstein. Congressional promises to release files have lagged, due to partisan maneuvering and justice department foot-dragging.

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

Lawsuits Aim at Leading Financial Institutions

These lawsuits, filed by an anonymous plaintiff against Bank of America and the Bank of New York Mellon (BNY), allege that these banking giants unlawfully facilitated Epstein’s trafficking ring. The suits are led by Sigrid S McCawley, of a prominent law firm, and lawyer Brad Edwards of Edwards Henderson, who have long represented survivors of Epstein’s abuse.

“The financier carried out these offenses by means of not only his own extraordinary wealth and power, but through financial backing and financial support from both private parties and organizations, including the bank,” one lawsuit claims. “Egregiously, the institution had a abundance of knowledge regarding Epstein’s sex trafficking operation but opted for financial gain over safeguarding those harmed.”

The complaint against Bank of America echoes these allegations, asserting the institution “knowingly provided the financial support and the appearance of respectability for Epstein and his accomplices to support their international sex trafficking organization under the pretext of non-criminal business activities”. The suit also said the bank failed to file suspicious activity reports.

Attorneys Weigh In on Case Challenges

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

Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor who established West Coast Trial lawyers, said proof has to show that an bank’s conduct 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 explanations and legal redress and financial recovery,” the attorney said. Some claims might be not directly related from a legal standpoint.

“The case hinges on proof,” he said. A attorney would need to prove cause and effect, which would mean “but for the defendant’s conduct, the harm wouldn’t have happened”. In this case, that would boil down to “but for the bank’s conduct, the victim maybe wouldn’t have been trafficked”, Rahmani explained.

A lawyer would also have to go beyond a basic causation test. “Is not just ‘but for’ causation. It also has to be a significant element: that is the standard. So whatever misconduct there was, if there was any misconduct … the defendant’s misconduct 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.”

Regardless of legal responsibility, suits like this 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 banks try to get these cases thrown out and are unsuccessful, Rahmani anticipates a quick resolution. “No party desires to pursue any of the Epstein-related cases.”

Eric Faddis, a litigator and principal of the legal practice Varner Faddis and former prosecutor, said corporations can be liable. In this scenario, “if the institutions bear fault is going to depend, in part, on their level of awareness, whether they had any knowledge of claimed misconduct or illegal acts”, and in some way offered support to Epstein.

“But even then, I think it’s going to be hard to sort of loop the banks into some kind of trafficking operation. The banks would likely not be aware of the details of allegations,” the lawyer said. While the financier’s prior legal case was public, “it’s not illegal for a financial institution to have a customer who’s an disreputable individual”.

“However, it is unlawful for a bank to in any way be complicit in the criminal activity 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, important aspects of the legal proceedings could assist Epstein survivors.

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

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 suffer from similar trafficking organizations – if our banks are not held accountable for the essential role each performs, either in supplying the required framework for the criminal enterprise or recognizing the financial component of these offenses and stopping it.

Edwards continued: “We have a far better chance of effecting meaningful change than lawmakers, because we know the facts and history of the matter and are not motivated by politics but rather by a sincere intention to create substantial impact and to protect the victims, who have already endured immense pain.

“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 declaration: “As Congress works toward unraveling how Jeffrey Epstein was able to orchestrate his criminal sex-trafficking enterprise for decades without being caught, we are taking another important step forward toward justice for victims.”

Institutional Reactions

When requested for a statement on the lawsuit, BNY said: “The claims in the lawsuit are meritless, and we will strongly contest against it.”

The bank’s response similarly remarked: “We will vigorously defend ourselves in this matter.”