🔗 Share this article

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

Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s ex-girlfriend, was found guilty of human trafficking in a 2021 trial for her involvement in the deceased billionaire’s sexual abuse of underage females – and given to 20 years imprisonment.

At the same time, financial firms that had worked with Epstein, while not admitting wrongdoing, paid substantial sums in settlements to victims. Former President Trump even made disclosing the Epstein investigative files part of his campaign platform, and reiterated on his promise to do so in recent months.

In the end, Trump’s justice department did not release these files, and his government has become embroiled in allegations about social ties between him and Epstein. Assurances from lawmakers to disclose documents have stalled, due to political jockeying and justice department foot-dragging.

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

Lawsuits Target Leading Financial Institutions

These lawsuits, filed by an anonymous plaintiff against a major U.S. bank and the BNY Mellon, allege that these banking giants illicitly enabled Epstein’s sex trafficking. The suits are led by attorney Sigrid McCawley, of a prominent law firm, and 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 vast fortune and power, but through financial backing and financial support from both private parties and institutions, including BNY,” one lawsuit claims. “Egregiously, the institution had a abundance of knowledge regarding Epstein’s trafficking network but chose profit over safeguarding those harmed.”

The complaint against Bank of America mirrors these claims, declaring the institution “deliberately supplied the monetary resources and the veneer of institutional legitimacy for Epstein and his co-conspirators to fuel their global trafficking enterprise under the pretext of legal commercial dealings”. The legal action also said the bank neglected to file suspicious activity reports.

Legal Experts Offer Perspectives on Legal Hurdles

Experienced lawyers who spoke to the matter said proving such a case would be challenging. But they also identified potential results which could offer comfort to accusers or disclosure of previously hidden details.

Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor who founded West Coast Trial lawyers, said evidence has to show that an bank’s conduct led to harm.

“I don’t think the lawsuit has much of a chance of success – and clearly I am on the side of the victims, and I want them to get explanations and criminal justice and financial recovery,” the attorney said. Some claims might be not directly related from a legal standpoint.

“It all comes down to evidence,” Rahmani said. A lawyer would need to prove cause and effect, which would mean “but for the defendant’s conduct, the harm wouldn’t have happened”. In this instance, that would translate to “absent the institution’s involvement, the victim maybe wouldn’t have been exploited”, the lawyer explained.

A lawyer would also have to go further than a basic causation test. “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 key contributor 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 serve as a warning that relationships with those accused of wrongdoing can have negative consequences for them.

“It represents a reputational disaster,” Rahmani noted. If the banks try to get these suits dismissed and are unsuccessful, Rahmani expects a quick resolution. “No party desires to pursue any of the legal matters tied to Epstein.”

Eric Faddis, a trial attorney and founder of the legal practice Varner Faddis and ex-government lawyer, said corporations can be liable. In this situation, “if the institutions bear fault is going to depend, in part, on their level of awareness, whether they had any knowledge of alleged abuse or illegal acts”, and somehow offered support to Epstein.

“However, even in that case, I think it’s going to be hard to sort of loop the financial entities into some kind of trafficking operation. The banks would likely not be privy to the particulars of claims,” 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 unsavory person”.

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

Potential Benefits for Victims

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

“The lawsuits have the potential to reveal more information about the continuing Epstein story,” Faddis said. “Despite the fact that there have been obstacles erected at every turn for individuals pursuing this data, when there’s a legal action, there’s a discovery process, and that discovery process often requires release of information that was not formerly available.”

Attorney Brad Edwards said in a statement that the lawsuits could have a deterrent effect and achieve what lawmakers have been unable to do.

“The lawsuits are necessary for complete justice for the survivors of the financier – as well as for potential targets who will be harmed from similar trafficking organizations – if our banks are not made responsible for the essential role each performs, either in supplying the necessary infrastructure for the illegal operation or recognizing the financial component of these crimes and stopping it.

He added: “We have a far better chance of effecting meaningful change than lawmakers, because we know the facts and background of the case and are not motivated by politics but rather by a genuine desire to create substantial impact and to protect the victims, who have already suffered tremendously.

“Our handling of these issues without any partisan motives and thus will not be swayed 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 orchestrate his illegal trafficking operation for decades without detection, we are taking a further significant action forward toward legal resolution for victims.”

Institutional Reactions

Asked for comment on the legal complaint, BNY said: “The allegations in the case are baseless, and we will vigorously defend against it.”

Bank of America’s statement similarly remarked: “We will vigorously defend ourselves in this case.”