🔗 Share this article

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

Epstein’s former associate Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s ex-girlfriend, was convicted of human trafficking four years ago for her role in the late financier’s sexual abuse of teen girls – and given to 20 years imprisonment.

Meanwhile, banks that had done business with Epstein, although not accepting fault, paid hundreds of millions in agreements to victims. Former President Trump even made releasing the Epstein investigative files part of his campaign platform, and reiterated on his promise to do so early this year.

Ultimately, Trump’s justice department did not release these records, and his administration has become involved in allegations about social ties between him and Epstein. Assurances from lawmakers to disclose documents have stalled, due to political jockeying and delays from federal authorities.

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

Lawsuits Target Leading Financial Institutions

These lawsuits, filed by an unnamed accuser against Bank of America and the BNY Mellon, allege that these banking giants illicitly enabled Epstein’s sex trafficking. The cases are helmed by Sigrid S McCawley, of a prominent law firm, and 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 monetary assistance from both private parties and organizations, including the bank,” one lawsuit claims. “Egregiously, BNY had a abundance of knowledge regarding Epstein’s trafficking network but chose profit over protecting the victims.”

The complaint against Bank of America echoes these allegations, asserting 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 suit also said the bank neglected to file suspicious activity reports.

Attorneys Offer Perspectives on Legal Hurdles

Experienced lawyers who spoke to the situation said proving such a case would be difficult. But they also identified possible outcomes which could offer comfort to accusers or disclosure of previously hidden details.

Attorney 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 clearly I am on the side of the victims, and I want them to get explanations and criminal justice and financial recovery,” Rahmani said. Certain allegations might be not directly related from a legal standpoint.

“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 happened”. In this case, that would translate to “absent the institution’s involvement, the victim maybe wouldn’t have been trafficked”, Rahmani explained.

An attorney would also have to go beyond a “but for” measure. “It’s not solely about indirect cause. It also has to be a substantial factor: that is the legal test. So whatever misconduct there was, if there was any wrongdoing … the defendant’s misconduct has to have been a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff harm.

“By engaging in a business relationship with Epstein, is that a decisive element? I don’t know.”

Regardless of legal responsibility, such lawsuits could serve as a warning that associations with those accused of wrongdoing can have negative consequences for them.

“It’s a PR nightmare,” he said. If the financial institutions try to get these suits dismissed and are unsuccessful, the attorney anticipates 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 his firm and ex-government lawyer, said companies can be responsible. In this situation, “if the institutions bear fault is going to depend, 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 hard to effectively connect the banks into some kind of trafficking operation. The banks would likely not be aware of the details of allegations,” the lawyer said. While Epstein’s Florida conviction was known, “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 somehow be complicit in the illegal actions of a customer, but those two issues are very different, and so I think that it’s going to be a tough lawsuit against the banks.”

Potential Benefits for Survivors

That said, important aspects of the legal proceedings could assist those affected by Epstein.

“The lawsuits have the potential to reveal more information about the continuing Epstein story,” Faddis said. “Even though there have been obstacles erected at every turn for individuals seeking this data, when there’s a legal action, there’s a evidence-gathering phase, and that discovery process often requires release of materials that was not previously public.”

Edwards said in a statement that the lawsuits could have a preventive impact and accomplish what legislators have failed to do.

“The lawsuits are necessary for complete justice for the survivors of Jeffrey Epstein – as well as for potential targets who will be harmed from comparable criminal networks – if our banks are not made responsible for the essential role each performs, either in supplying the necessary infrastructure for the criminal enterprise or identifying the financial component of these offenses and stopping it.

Edwards continued: “We have a far better chance of making a real difference 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 suffered tremendously.

“Our handling of these issues without any political agenda and thus will not be swayed by obstructions, protecting wealthy politically connected individuals, or the other embarrassing partisan gamesmanship you and the rest of the world have had to observe recently.”

Attorney Sigrid McCawley said in a statement: “While legislators attempt to uncover how the financier was able to conduct his criminal sex-trafficking enterprise for many years without detection, we are taking a further significant action forward toward legal resolution for victims.”

Bank Responses

Asked for comment on the lawsuit, BNY said: “The allegations in the case are baseless, and we will strongly contest against it.”

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