🔗 Share this article

For years, victims of the late financier Jeffrey Epstein have sought accountability. For a while, it seemed like they would get it.

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

Meanwhile, financial firms that had done business with Epstein, although not admitting wrongdoing, agreed to pay substantial sums in settlements to victims. Donald Trump even made releasing the Epstein investigative files part of his campaign platform, and doubled down on his commitment to do so early this year.

In the end, the administration’s Department of Justice did not release these files, and his government has become embroiled in reports about social ties 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 – irrespective of their result.

Legal Actions Target Major Banks

These lawsuits, submitted by an anonymous plaintiff against a major U.S. bank and the Bank of New York Mellon (BNY), allege that these banking giants unlawfully facilitated Epstein’s trafficking ring. The suits are led by attorney Sigrid McCawley, of a prominent law firm, 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 access to funding and financial support from both individuals and institutions, including the bank,” one lawsuit claims. “Shockingly, BNY 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 monetary resources and the veneer of institutional legitimacy for Epstein and his accomplices to fuel their global trafficking enterprise under the pretext of legal commercial dealings”. The suit also said Bank of America failed to file suspicious activity reports.

Legal Experts Offer Perspectives on Legal Hurdles

Longtime attorneys who spoke to the situation said establishing liability would be challenging. But they also identified possible outcomes which could offer comfort to plaintiffs or disclosure of previously hidden details.

Neama Rahmani, a ex-government lawyer who founded West Coast Trial lawyers, said proof 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 survivors, and I want them to get explanations and legal redress and financial recovery,” Rahmani said. Certain allegations might be too tangential 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 harm wouldn’t have occurred”. In this instance, that would boil down to “absent the institution’s involvement, the victim maybe wouldn’t have been trafficked”, Rahmani clarified.

A lawyer would also have to go further than a basic causation test. “Is not just ‘but for’ causation. It also has to be a substantial factor: that is the legal test. So any improper behavior there was, if there was any wrongdoing … the bank’s actions has to have been a key contributor in leading to the plaintiff harm.

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

Liability aside, suits like this could put institutions on notice that associations with those accused of wrongdoing can have negative consequences for them.

“It’s a PR nightmare,” Rahmani noted. If the financial institutions try to get these suits thrown out and are unsuccessful, Rahmani expects a swift settlement. “No party desires to pursue 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 situation, “if the institutions bear fault is going to depend, in part, on their level of awareness, if they were informed of claimed misconduct or criminal wrongdoing”, 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 privy to the particulars of allegations,” the lawyer said. While Epstein’s Florida conviction was public, “it’s not illegal for a bank to have a customer who’s an unsavory person”.

“However, it is unlawful for a bank to somehow be involved in the criminal activity of a client, but these aspects 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 those affected by Epstein.

“The lawsuits have the potential to reveal more information about the ongoing Epstein saga,” Faddis said. “Despite the fact that there have been sort of walls put up at every turn for folks seeking this information, when there’s a legal action, there’s a evidence-gathering phase, and that discovery process often requires disclosure 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 suffer from comparable criminal networks – if our financial institutions are not held accountable for the crucial part each plays, either in providing the required framework for the criminal enterprise or recognizing the monetary aspect of these offenses and stopping it.

He added: “Our prospects are significantly higher of making a real difference than lawmakers, because we know the facts and history of the matter and are not driven by politics 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 political agenda and thus cannot be deterred by obstructions, 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 Jeffrey Epstein was able to orchestrate his illegal trafficking operation for many years without detection, we are taking another important step forward toward legal resolution for survivors.”

Bank Responses

When requested for a statement on the lawsuit, the Bank of New York Mellon said: “The allegations in the case are baseless, and we will strongly contest against it.”

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