🔗 Share this article

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

Epstein’s former associate Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s ex-girlfriend, was found guilty of sex trafficking in a 2021 trial for her role in the deceased billionaire’s sexual abuse of teen girls – and given to two decades behind bars.

At the same time, banks that had worked with Epstein, while not admitting wrongdoing, agreed to pay substantial sums in agreements to survivors. Donald Trump even made disclosing the documents related to the Epstein probe part of his campaign platform, and reiterated on his promise to do so in recent months.

Ultimately, Trump’s justice department did not release these records, and his government has become involved in reports about personal connections between him and Epstein. Assurances from lawmakers to disclose documents have lagged, due to partisan maneuvering and justice department foot-dragging.

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

Lawsuits Target Major Banks

These lawsuits, filed by an unnamed accuser against a major U.S. bank and the BNY Mellon, allege 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 his legal practice, who have long represented Epstein victims.

“The financier carried out these offenses by means of not only his own vast fortune and influence, but through financial backing and financial support from both individuals and institutions, including BNY,” the legal filing claims. “Egregiously, the institution had a abundance of knowledge regarding Epstein’s sex trafficking operation but chose profit over safeguarding those harmed.”

The complaint against Bank of America echoes these allegations, asserting the institution “deliberately supplied the financial support and the appearance of respectability for Epstein and his accomplices to support their global trafficking enterprise under the pretext of legal commercial dealings”. The legal action also said the bank neglected 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 potential results which could provide solace to accusers or release of long-sought information.

Attorney Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor who founded a legal firm, 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 answers and legal redress and financial recovery,” the attorney said. Some claims might be not directly related from a legal standpoint.

“It all comes down to evidence,” he said. A lawyer would need to prove causation, which would mean “if not for the bank’s actions, the harm wouldn’t have happened”. In this instance, that would boil down to “but for the bank’s conduct, the survivor maybe wouldn’t have been trafficked”, Rahmani clarified.

A lawyer would also have to go beyond a basic causation test. “Is not just ‘but for’ causation. It also has to be a substantial factor: 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 victim’s suffering.

“Through maintaining financial ties to Epstein, is that a decisive element? It’s uncertain.”

Regardless of legal responsibility, such lawsuits could put institutions on notice that relationships with those involved in alleged crimes can have damaging implications for them.

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

Attorney Eric Faddis, a litigator and principal of the Colorado law firm his firm and ex-government lawyer, said companies can be responsible. In this scenario, “if the institutions bear fault is going to hinge, 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.

“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 probably not be aware of the particulars of claims,” Faddis said. While the financier’s prior legal case was known, “there’s no law against for a bank to have a customer who’s an unsavory person”.

“It is illegal for a financial firm to somehow 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 difficult case against the banks.”

Possible Advantages for Survivors

That said, important aspects of the litigation could assist 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 sort of walls put up at every turn for individuals pursuing this information, when there’s a lawsuit, there’s a discovery process, and that discovery process often mandates release of materials that was not previously public.”

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

“Legal actions are essential for full accountability for the victims of the financier – as well as for future would-be victims who will suffer from similar trafficking organizations – if our banks are not held accountable for the crucial part each performs, either in supplying the required framework for the illegal operation or recognizing the financial component of these crimes and putting an end to it.

Edwards continued: “Our prospects are significantly higher of effecting meaningful change than Congress, because we understand the facts and background of the case and are not driven by politics but rather by a genuine desire to make a real difference and to protect the victims, who have already endured immense pain.

“We approach these matters without any partisan motives and thus cannot be deterred 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: “As Congress works toward unraveling how Jeffrey Epstein was able to conduct his criminal sex-trafficking enterprise for many years without being caught, we are taking a further significant action forward toward legal resolution 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 will vigorously defend ourselves in this case.”