🔗 Share this article

Over many years, survivors 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 human trafficking in a 2021 trial for her involvement in the late financier’s sexual abuse of underage females – and sentenced to 20 years imprisonment.

At the same time, financial firms that had done business with Epstein, although not accepting fault, agreed to pay hundreds of millions in agreements to victims. Donald Trump even made releasing the Epstein investigative files part of his campaign platform, and reiterated on his promise to do so in recent months.

Ultimately, the administration’s Department of Justice did not make public these files, and his administration has become embroiled in reports about social ties between him and Epstein. Assurances from lawmakers to release files have lagged, due to partisan maneuvering and justice department foot-dragging.

However recent legal actions could shed light on Epstein’s activities amid the stalemate – regardless of their outcome.

Legal Actions Target Major Banks

The legal complaints, submitted by an anonymous plaintiff against a major U.S. bank and the BNY Mellon, allege that these financial powerhouses unlawfully facilitated Epstein’s sex trafficking. The suits are helmed by Sigrid S McCawley, of Boies Schiller Flexner, and lawyer Brad Edwards of his legal practice, who have long represented survivors of Epstein’s abuse.

“The financier carried out these offenses by means of not only his own vast fortune and power, but through financial backing and monetary assistance from both individuals and institutions, including the bank,” one lawsuit states. “Egregiously, BNY 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 echoes these allegations, declaring 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 the bank neglected to file mandatory financial alerts.

Attorneys Weigh In on Legal Hurdles

Longtime attorneys who commented on the matter said establishing liability would be difficult. But they also identified potential results which could provide solace to plaintiffs or release of long-sought information.

Neama Rahmani, a ex-government lawyer who established a legal firm, said proof has to show that an bank’s conduct resulted in 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 explanations and legal redress and compensation,” Rahmani said. Some claims might be not directly related from a legal standpoint.

“It all comes down to evidence,” he 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 case, that would boil down to “but for the bank’s conduct, the victim maybe wouldn’t have been trafficked”, the lawyer clarified.

An attorney would also have to go further than 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 bank’s actions has to have been a key contributor in leading to the victim’s suffering.

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

Liability aside, suits like this could serve as a warning that relationships 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 cases dismissed and are unsuccessful, the attorney expects a swift settlement. “No party desires to pursue any of the legal matters tied to Epstein.”

Eric Faddis, a litigator and founder of the Colorado law firm his firm and ex-government lawyer, said companies can be liable. In this scenario, “if the institutions bear fault is going to depend, in part, on what the banks knew, whether they had any knowledge of alleged abuse or criminal wrongdoing”, and somehow offered support to Epstein.

“But even then, I think it’s going to be hard to effectively connect the financial entities into some kind of trafficking operation. The banks would probably not be aware of the details of claims,” Faddis said. While the financier’s prior legal case was public, “there’s no law against for a bank to have a customer who’s an unsavory person”.

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

Potential Benefits for Survivors

Nevertheless, important aspects of the legal proceedings could assist Epstein survivors.

“The lawsuits have the potential to reveal more information about the continuing Epstein story,” the attorney said. “Despite the fact that 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 legal procedure often mandates release of materials that was not formerly available.”

Attorney Brad Edwards said in a statement that the lawsuits could have a preventive impact and achieve what lawmakers have failed to do.

“Legal actions are essential for full accountability for the victims of Jeffrey Epstein – as well as for potential targets who will suffer from similar trafficking organizations – if our financial institutions are not made responsible for the essential role each plays, either in providing the necessary infrastructure for the illegal operation or identifying the monetary aspect of these crimes and stopping it.

Edwards continued: “Our prospects are significantly higher of effecting meaningful change than Congress, because we know the details and history of the matter and are not motivated by partisan interests but rather by a sincere intention to create substantial impact and to protect the survivors, who have already suffered tremendously.

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

Attorney Sigrid McCawley said in a declaration: “As Congress works toward unraveling how the financier was able to conduct his illegal trafficking operation for decades without detection, we are taking a further significant action forward toward justice for victims.”

Institutional Reactions

When requested for a statement on the lawsuit, BNY said: “The claims in the lawsuit are meritless, and we will strongly contest against it.”

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