🔗 Share this article

Over many years, survivors of Jeffrey Epstein have demanded justice. At one point, it appeared like they would get it.

Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s ex-girlfriend, was found guilty of sex trafficking in a 2021 trial for her role in the late financier’s exploitation of underage females – and given to two decades behind bars.

Meanwhile, financial firms that had worked with Epstein, although not accepting fault, paid substantial sums 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 early this year.

Ultimately, the administration’s Department of Justice did not release these records, and his government has become embroiled in allegations about personal connections between him and Epstein. Congressional promises to disclose documents have lagged, due to political jockeying and justice department foot-dragging.

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

Legal Actions Aim at Major Banks

The legal complaints, filed by an anonymous plaintiff against a major U.S. bank and the Bank of New York Mellon (BNY), claim that these banking giants illicitly enabled Epstein’s sex trafficking. The suits are led by attorney Sigrid McCawley, of Boies Schiller Flexner, and lawyer Brad Edwards of Edwards Henderson, who have long represented Epstein victims.

“Epstein committed these crimes by means of not only his own extraordinary wealth and power, but through financial backing and financial support from both individuals and organizations, including the bank,” the legal filing claims. “Shockingly, the institution had a plethora of information regarding Epstein’s sex trafficking operation but chose profit 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 co-conspirators to fuel their international sex trafficking organization under the pretext of legal commercial dealings”. The legal action also said Bank of America failed to file suspicious activity reports.

Attorneys Offer Perspectives on Case Challenges

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

Attorney Neama Rahmani, a ex-government lawyer who founded a legal firm, 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 obviously I am on the side of the victims, and I want them to get answers and legal redress and compensation,” the attorney said. Certain allegations might be not directly related from a juridical perspective.

“It all comes down to evidence,” he said. A attorney would need to prove cause and effect, which would mean “if not for the bank’s actions, the harm wouldn’t have happened”. In this case, that would boil down to “absent the institution’s involvement, the survivor maybe wouldn’t have been exploited”, the lawyer explained.

A lawyer would also have to go further than a “but for” measure. “Is not just ‘but for’ causation. It also has to be a significant element: that is the legal test. So any improper behavior 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.

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

Liability aside, such lawsuits could serve as a warning that associations with those involved in alleged crimes can have damaging implications for them.

“It represents a reputational disaster,” Rahmani noted. If the financial institutions try to get these cases thrown out 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 trial attorney and principal of the legal practice his firm and former prosecutor, said corporations can be responsible. In this situation, “if the institutions bear fault is going to hinge, in part, on what the banks knew, if they were informed of alleged abuse or criminal wrongdoing”, and somehow provided assistance to Epstein.

“But even then, I think it’s going to be difficult to sort of loop the financial entities into some kind of trafficking operation. The institutions would probably not be privy to the particulars of allegations,” the lawyer said. While the financier’s prior legal case was public, “it’s not illegal for a financial institution to have a customer who’s an disreputable individual”.

“It is illegal for a financial firm to in any way 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 difficult case against the institutions.”

Possible Advantages for Survivors

That said, key elements of the litigation could help Epstein survivors.

“The lawsuits have the potential to reveal more information about the ongoing Epstein saga,” the attorney said. “Despite the fact that 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 legal procedure often mandates release of materials that was not previously public.”

Attorney Brad Edwards said in a comment that the suits could have a preventive impact and accomplish what legislators have been unable to do.

“Legal actions are essential for full accountability for the survivors of the financier – as well as for potential targets who will be harmed 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 recognizing the monetary aspect of these offenses and stopping it.

He added: “Our prospects are significantly higher of effecting meaningful change than Congress, because we know the facts and background of the case and are not motivated by politics but rather by a sincere intention to make a real difference and to protect the survivors, who have already suffered tremendously.

“Our handling of these issues without any partisan motives 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.”

McCawley said in a statement: “While legislators attempt to uncover how Jeffrey Epstein was able to conduct his illegal trafficking operation for decades without detection, we are taking a further significant action forward toward justice for survivors.”

Bank Responses

Asked for comment on the lawsuit, BNY said: “The claims in the lawsuit are meritless, and we will vigorously defend against it.”

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