🔗 Share this article

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

Ghislaine Maxwell, the financier’s one-time partner, was found guilty of human trafficking four years ago for her role in the late financier’s sexual abuse of underage females – and given to two decades behind bars.

At the same time, banks that had worked with Epstein, while not admitting wrongdoing, paid hundreds of millions in agreements to survivors. Former President Trump even made disclosing the Epstein investigative files part of his election promises, and reiterated on his commitment to do so in recent months.

In the end, Trump’s justice department did not release these records, and his administration has become involved in reports about social ties between him and Epstein. Assurances from lawmakers to release files have lagged, due to political jockeying and delays from federal authorities.

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

Lawsuits Aim at Major Banks

These lawsuits, filed by an anonymous plaintiff against a major U.S. bank and the BNY Mellon, allege that these banking giants unlawfully facilitated Epstein’s sex trafficking. The suits are helmed by Sigrid S McCawley, of Boies Schiller Flexner, and Brad Edwards of Edwards Henderson, 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 influence, but through access to funding and monetary assistance from both private parties and organizations, including the bank,” the legal filing claims. “Shockingly, BNY had a abundance of knowledge regarding Epstein’s sex trafficking operation but chose profit over protecting the victims.”

The Bank of America suit echoes these allegations, asserting the institution “deliberately supplied the financial support and the veneer of institutional legitimacy for Epstein and his accomplices to fuel their global trafficking enterprise under the pretext of non-criminal business activities”. The suit also said Bank of America failed to file suspicious activity reports.

Legal Experts Weigh In on Case Challenges

Experienced lawyers who spoke to the matter said proving such a case would be difficult. But they also identified possible outcomes which could offer comfort to plaintiffs or disclosure of long-sought information.

Attorney Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor 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 obviously I am on the side of the survivors, and I want them to get answers and criminal justice and financial recovery,” the attorney said. Certain allegations might be too tangential from a juridical perspective.

“The case hinges on proof,” Rahmani said. A attorney would need to prove cause and effect, which would mean “but for the defendant’s conduct, the injury wouldn’t have occurred”. In this instance, that would translate to “but for the bank’s conduct, the survivor maybe wouldn’t have been exploited”, Rahmani clarified.

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 any improper behavior there was, if there was any misconduct … 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 substantial factor? It’s uncertain.”

Liability aside, suits like this could put institutions on notice that relationships with those involved in alleged crimes can have negative consequences for them.

“It represents a reputational disaster,” he said. If the financial institutions try to get these suits thrown out and are unsuccessful, the attorney anticipates 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 former prosecutor, said companies can be liable. In this scenario, “if the institutions bear fault is going to hinge, in part, on their level of awareness, whether they had any knowledge of alleged abuse or criminal wrongdoing”, and somehow provided assistance to Epstein.

“But even then, I think it’s going to be hard to effectively connect the banks into some kind of sex-trafficking scheme. The banks would probably not be privy to the details of allegations,” the lawyer said. While the financier’s prior legal case 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 illegal actions of a client, but those two issues are distinct, and so I think that it’s going to be a tough lawsuit against the banks.”

Possible Advantages for Victims

Nevertheless, 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. “Even though there have been obstacles erected at every turn for individuals pursuing this information, when there’s a lawsuit, there’s a discovery process, and that legal procedure often mandates disclosure of information that was not previously public.”

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

“The lawsuits are necessary for complete justice 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 held accountable for the essential role each performs, either in supplying the necessary infrastructure for the illegal operation or identifying the monetary aspect of these offenses and stopping it.

He added: “We have a far better chance of making a real difference than Congress, because we know the facts and history of the case and are not driven by partisan interests but rather by a sincere intention to make a real difference and to protect the survivors, who have already endured immense pain.

“Our handling of these issues without any political agenda and thus cannot be deterred by shutdowns, shielding influential figures, or the other shameful political maneuvering 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 conduct his criminal sex-trafficking enterprise for decades without detection, we are taking another important step forward toward legal resolution for survivors.”

Bank Responses

When requested for a statement 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 similarly remarked: “We intend to firmly protect our interests in this matter.”