🔗 Share this article

For years, victims of the late financier Jeffrey Epstein have sought justice. For a while, it appeared like they would achieve it.

Ghislaine Maxwell, the financier’s one-time partner, was convicted of sex trafficking in a 2021 trial for her involvement in the deceased billionaire’s exploitation of underage females – and given to two decades behind bars.

At the same time, financial firms that had done business with Epstein, while not admitting wrongdoing, agreed to pay hundreds of millions in settlements to victims. Donald Trump even made disclosing 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, Trump’s justice department did not release these files, and his administration has become involved in allegations about personal connections between him and Epstein. Congressional promises to release files have stalled, due to partisan maneuvering and delays from federal authorities.

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

Lawsuits Aim at Major Banks

The legal complaints, filed by an anonymous plaintiff against a major U.S. bank and the Bank of New York Mellon (BNY), allege that these financial powerhouses illicitly enabled Epstein’s trafficking ring. The suits are helmed by attorney Sigrid McCawley, of Boies Schiller Flexner, and lawyer Brad Edwards of his legal practice, who have long represented Epstein victims.

“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 states. “Egregiously, the institution had a plethora of information regarding Epstein’s sex trafficking operation but opted for financial gain over safeguarding those harmed.”

The Bank of America suit mirrors these claims, asserting the institution “deliberately supplied 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 Bank of America failed to file mandatory financial alerts.

Attorneys Offer Perspectives on Legal Hurdles

Experienced lawyers who commented on the situation said establishing liability would be challenging. But they also noted possible outcomes which could offer comfort to accusers or release of long-sought information.

Neama Rahmani, a ex-government lawyer 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 obviously I am on the side of the survivors, and I want them to get explanations and criminal justice and compensation,” the attorney said. Certain allegations might be not directly related from a juridical perspective.

“It all comes down to evidence,” he said. A lawyer would need to prove cause and effect, which would mean “but for the defendant’s conduct, 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 further than a basic causation test. “It’s not solely about indirect cause. It also has to be a significant element: that is the standard. So any improper behavior there was, if there was any misconduct … the defendant’s misconduct has to have been a key contributor in causing the plaintiff harm.

“Through maintaining financial ties to Epstein, is that a substantial factor? I don’t know.”

Regardless of legal responsibility, suits like this could serve as a warning that relationships with those involved in alleged crimes can have negative consequences for them.

“It’s a PR nightmare,” Rahmani noted. If the financial institutions try to get these cases dismissed and are unsuccessful, Rahmani anticipates a swift settlement. “No one wants to go litigate any of the Epstein-related cases.”

Attorney Eric Faddis, a trial attorney and founder of the legal practice his firm and ex-government lawyer, said corporations can be liable. In this scenario, “if the institutions bear fault is going to depend, in part, on what the banks knew, if they were informed of alleged abuse or illegal acts”, and in some way provided assistance to Epstein.

“However, even in that case, I think it’s going to be difficult to sort of loop the financial entities into some kind of trafficking operation. The institutions would likely not be aware of the details of allegations,” the lawyer said. While the financier’s prior legal case was known, “it’s not illegal for a financial institution to have a customer who’s an unsavory person”.

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

Possible Advantages for Survivors

Nevertheless, important aspects of the legal proceedings could help those affected by Epstein.

“These cases may uncover additional details about the ongoing Epstein saga,” Faddis said. “Despite the fact that there have been sort of walls put up at every turn for individuals seeking this data, when there’s a lawsuit, there’s a discovery process, and that discovery process often requires release of information that was not previously public.”

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 financial institutions are not held accountable for the essential role each performs, either in providing the necessary infrastructure for the illegal operation or recognizing the financial component of these crimes and stopping it.

He added: “Our prospects are significantly higher of making a real difference than lawmakers, because we understand the details and background of the case and are not motivated by partisan interests but rather by a genuine desire to make a real difference and to safeguard the victims, who have already endured immense pain.

“We approach these matters without any political agenda and thus will not be swayed by shutdowns, shielding influential figures, or the other embarrassing partisan gamesmanship you and the rest of the world have had to observe recently.”

McCawley said in a statement: “As Congress works toward unraveling how Jeffrey Epstein was able to orchestrate his criminal sex-trafficking enterprise for decades without detection, we are taking another important step forward toward justice for survivors.”

Bank Responses

When requested for a statement 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.”

The bank’s response likewise stated: “We intend to firmly protect our interests in this matter.”