🔗 Share this article

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

Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s ex-girlfriend, was convicted of sex trafficking in a 2021 trial for her involvement in the deceased billionaire’s sexual abuse of teen girls – and sentenced to two decades behind bars.

Meanwhile, banks that had done business with Epstein, although not accepting fault, agreed to pay substantial sums in settlements to survivors. Donald Trump even made releasing the Epstein investigative files part of his campaign platform, and doubled down on his promise to do so early this year.

Ultimately, the administration’s Department of Justice did not make public these files, and his government has become embroiled in reports about personal connections between him and Epstein. Assurances from lawmakers to disclose documents have stalled, due to partisan maneuvering and delays from federal authorities.

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

Lawsuits Aim at Leading Financial Institutions

These lawsuits, submitted by an unnamed accuser against a major U.S. bank and the BNY Mellon, allege that these financial powerhouses illicitly enabled Epstein’s trafficking ring. The suits are led by Sigrid S McCawley, of Boies Schiller Flexner, and lawyer Brad Edwards of his legal practice, who have consistently advocated for survivors of Epstein’s abuse.

“Epstein committed these crimes by means of not only his own vast fortune and power, but through financial backing and financial support from both individuals and institutions, including the bank,” the legal filing states. “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 mirrors these claims, declaring the institution “deliberately supplied the financial support and the veneer of institutional legitimacy for Epstein and his accomplices to support their global trafficking enterprise under the pretext of non-criminal business activities”. The legal action also said Bank of America failed to file mandatory financial alerts.

Legal Experts Weigh In on Case Challenges

Experienced lawyers who commented on the situation said proving such a case would be challenging. But they also identified possible outcomes which could provide solace to plaintiffs or release of previously hidden details.

Attorney Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor who founded West Coast Trial lawyers, said evidence has to show that an institution’s actions 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,” the attorney said. Some claims might be too tangential from a juridical perspective.

“The case hinges on proof,” Rahmani said. A attorney would need to prove causation, which would mean “if not for the bank’s actions, the injury wouldn’t have occurred”. In this instance, 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 further than a basic causation test. “Is not just ‘but for’ causation. It also has to be a significant element: that is the legal test. So whatever misconduct there was, if there was any wrongdoing … the bank’s actions has to have been a key contributor in leading to the plaintiff harm.

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

Liability aside, suits like this could put institutions on notice 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 cases thrown out and fail, the attorney expects a swift settlement. “No one wants to go litigate any of the Epstein-related cases.”

Eric Faddis, a trial attorney and founder of the Colorado law firm Varner Faddis and ex-government lawyer, said corporations can be responsible. 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 offered support to Epstein.

“However, even in that case, I think it’s going to be difficult to effectively connect the financial entities into some kind of trafficking operation. The institutions would likely not be aware of the particulars of claims,” the lawyer said. While Epstein’s Florida conviction was public, “it’s not illegal for a bank to have a client who’s an disreputable individual”.

“It is illegal for a financial firm 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 banks.”

Possible Advantages for Victims

Nevertheless, important aspects of the litigation could help 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 data, when there’s a legal action, there’s a evidence-gathering phase, and that legal procedure often mandates disclosure of information that was not formerly available.”

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

“Legal actions are essential for full accountability for the victims 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 plays, either in supplying the necessary infrastructure for the illegal operation or recognizing the monetary aspect of these offenses and stopping it.

He added: “We have a far better chance of effecting meaningful change than lawmakers, because we understand the facts and background of the case and are not driven by politics but rather by a sincere intention to make a real difference and to protect the victims, who have already endured immense pain.

“Our handling of these issues without any political agenda and thus cannot be deterred 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 statement: “As Congress works toward unraveling how the financier was able to conduct his criminal sex-trafficking enterprise for many years without being caught, we are taking another important step forward toward justice for survivors.”

Bank Responses

Asked for comment on the lawsuit, 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 similarly remarked: “We intend to firmly protect our interests in this matter.”