🔗 Share this article

For years, victims of the late financier Jeffrey Epstein have sought 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 in a 2021 trial for her role in the deceased billionaire’s exploitation of underage females – and given to 20 years imprisonment.

At the same time, banks that had worked with Epstein, while not accepting fault, paid hundreds of millions in agreements to victims. Donald Trump even made disclosing the documents related to the Epstein probe part of his campaign platform, and doubled down on his commitment to do so early this year.

Ultimately, the administration’s Department of Justice did not release these files, and his administration has become involved 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.

However recent legal actions could provide clarity on Epstein’s operations amid the deadlock – regardless of their outcome.

Lawsuits Aim at Major Banks

The legal complaints, submitted by an anonymous plaintiff against Bank of America and the BNY Mellon, allege that these banking giants unlawfully facilitated Epstein’s trafficking ring. The suits are helmed by attorney Sigrid McCawley, of Boies Schiller Flexner, and Brad Edwards of Edwards Henderson, who have long represented Epstein victims.

“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 private parties and organizations, including BNY,” the legal filing claims. “Shockingly, the institution had a plethora of information regarding Epstein’s trafficking network but opted for financial gain over protecting the victims.”

The Bank of America suit mirrors these claims, declaring the institution “knowingly provided the financial support and the appearance of respectability for Epstein and his co-conspirators to support their international sex trafficking organization under the guise of legal commercial dealings”. The suit also said the bank failed to file mandatory financial alerts.

Legal Experts Weigh In on Case Challenges

Experienced lawyers who spoke to the situation said proving such a case would be difficult. But they also noted potential results which could offer comfort to plaintiffs or disclosure of long-sought information.

Attorney Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor who founded a legal firm, said proof has to show that an bank’s conduct led to harm.

“In my view, the case faces significant obstacles – and obviously I am on the side of the victims, and I want them to get answers and criminal justice and compensation,” Rahmani said. Certain allegations might be too tangential from a legal standpoint.

“The case hinges on proof,” he said. A attorney would need to prove causation, which would mean “if not for the bank’s actions, the injury wouldn’t have happened”. In this instance, that would boil down to “absent the institution’s involvement, the victim maybe wouldn’t have been exploited”, the lawyer explained.

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 significant element: that is the standard. So whatever misconduct there was, if there was any wrongdoing … the defendant’s misconduct has to have been a key contributor in causing the plaintiff harm.

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

Regardless of legal responsibility, such lawsuits could put institutions on notice that relationships with those involved in alleged crimes can have damaging implications for them.

“It represents a reputational disaster,” he said. If the banks try to get these suits dismissed and are unsuccessful, Rahmani expects a swift settlement. “No party desires to pursue any of the Epstein-related cases.”

Eric Faddis, a litigator and founder of the legal practice his firm and former prosecutor, said companies can be responsible. In this scenario, “if the institutions bear fault is going to hinge, in part, on what the banks knew, if they were informed of alleged abuse or illegal acts”, and in some way 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 sex-trafficking scheme. The banks would likely not be privy to the particulars of allegations,” the lawyer said. While the financier’s prior legal case was public, “there’s no law against for a financial institution to have a client who’s an disreputable individual”.

“However, it is unlawful for a financial firm to in any way be involved in the criminal activity of a client, but these aspects are very different, and so I think that it’s going to be a tough lawsuit against the banks.”

Possible Advantages for Victims

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

“The lawsuits have the potential to reveal more information about the continuing Epstein story,” the attorney said. “Even though 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 disclosure of information that was not previously public.”

Attorney Brad Edwards said in a statement that the suits 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 Jeffrey Epstein – as well as for future would-be victims who will suffer from comparable criminal networks – if our financial institutions are not made responsible for the crucial part each plays, either in providing the required framework for the illegal operation or identifying the monetary aspect of these crimes and stopping it.

He added: “Our prospects are significantly higher of effecting meaningful change than lawmakers, because we understand the facts and background of the matter and are not motivated by politics but rather by a genuine desire to make a real difference and to safeguard the victims, who have already endured immense pain.

“Our handling of these issues without any partisan motives and thus cannot be deterred by shutdowns, shielding influential figures, 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: “While legislators attempt to uncover how the financier was able to conduct his criminal sex-trafficking enterprise 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 allegations in the case are baseless, and we will strongly contest against it.”

The bank’s response similarly remarked: “We intend to firmly protect our interests in this matter.”