🔗 Share this article

Over many years, victims of Jeffrey Epstein have demanded justice. For a while, it seemed like they would get it.

Ghislaine Maxwell, the financier’s one-time partner, was convicted of sex trafficking in a 2021 trial for her role in the deceased billionaire’s sexual abuse of underage females – and given to 20 years imprisonment.

At the same time, banks that had done business with Epstein, while not admitting wrongdoing, agreed to pay hundreds of millions in settlements 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 early this year.

Ultimately, 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 lagged, due to partisan maneuvering and delays from federal authorities.

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

Lawsuits Target Leading Financial Institutions

The legal complaints, submitted by an unnamed accuser against a major U.S. bank and the BNY Mellon, allege that these banking giants unlawfully facilitated Epstein’s trafficking ring. The cases are helmed by attorney Sigrid McCawley, of Boies Schiller Flexner, and lawyer Brad Edwards of his legal practice, who have long represented survivors of Epstein’s abuse.

“Epstein committed these crimes by means of not only his own vast fortune and power, but through access to funding and monetary assistance from both individuals and organizations, including the bank,” one lawsuit claims. “Egregiously, the institution had a abundance of knowledge 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 “knowingly provided the financial support and the veneer of institutional legitimacy for Epstein and his co-conspirators to support their global trafficking enterprise under the pretext of legal commercial dealings”. The suit also said the bank neglected to file mandatory financial alerts.

Attorneys Weigh In on Case Challenges

Longtime attorneys who spoke to the situation said proving such a case would be challenging. But they also noted potential results which could offer comfort to accusers or release of previously hidden details.

Neama Rahmani, a ex-government lawyer who founded a legal firm, said evidence has to show that an institution’s actions led to harm.

“In my view, the case faces significant obstacles – and clearly I am on the side of the victims, and I want them to get answers and criminal justice and compensation,” the attorney said. Some claims might be not directly related from a legal standpoint.

“The case hinges on proof,” 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 case, that would boil down to “but for the bank’s conduct, the victim maybe wouldn’t have been trafficked”, the lawyer explained.

An attorney would also have to go beyond a basic causation test. “Is not just ‘but for’ causation. It also has to be a significant element: that is the standard. So whatever misconduct there was, if there was any misconduct … the bank’s actions has to have been a key contributor in causing the victim’s suffering.

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

Regardless of legal responsibility, suits like this could serve as a warning that relationships with those accused of wrongdoing can have damaging implications for them.

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

Eric Faddis, a litigator and principal of the Colorado law firm his firm and former prosecutor, said companies can be liable. In this scenario, “whether the banks have liability is going to hinge, in part, on their level of awareness, if they were informed of alleged abuse or criminal wrongdoing”, and somehow 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 sex-trafficking scheme. The institutions would probably not be privy to 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 bank to somehow be involved in the criminal activity of a customer, but those two issues are distinct, and so I think that it’s going to be a tough lawsuit against the institutions.”

Potential Benefits for Victims

That said, important aspects of the litigation 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 obstacles erected at every turn for individuals seeking this information, when there’s a legal action, there’s a evidence-gathering phase, and that legal procedure often requires release of materials that was not previously public.”

Edwards said in a comment that the lawsuits could have a deterrent effect and accomplish what legislators 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 suffer from comparable criminal networks – if our banks are not held accountable for the essential role each plays, either in providing the required framework for the illegal operation or recognizing the financial component of these offenses and putting an end to it.

He added: “Our prospects are significantly higher of making a real difference than lawmakers, because we know the details and history of the case and are not motivated by partisan interests but rather by a sincere intention to make a real difference and to protect the victims, who have already suffered tremendously.

“Our handling of these issues without any political agenda and thus cannot be deterred by shutdowns, 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 declaration: “While legislators attempt to uncover 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 survivors.”

Bank Responses

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

Bank of America’s statement likewise stated: “We intend to firmly protect our interests in this matter.”