🔗 Share this article

For years, survivors of Jeffrey Epstein have demanded justice. 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 in a 2021 trial for her role in the deceased billionaire’s sexual abuse of underage females – and given to two decades behind bars.

Meanwhile, banks that had done business with Epstein, although not admitting wrongdoing, agreed to pay hundreds of millions in agreements to victims. Donald Trump even made releasing the documents related to the Epstein probe part of his campaign platform, and doubled down on his promise to do so early this year.

In the end, Trump’s justice department did not make public these files, and his government has become involved in allegations about personal connections between him and Epstein. Congressional promises to release files have lagged, due to partisan maneuvering and justice department foot-dragging.

But two new lawsuits could provide clarity on Epstein’s operations amid the deadlock – regardless of their result.

Legal Actions Target Leading Financial Institutions

These lawsuits, filed by an anonymous plaintiff against Bank of America and the Bank of New York Mellon (BNY), claim that these banking giants illicitly enabled Epstein’s sex trafficking. The suits are helmed by Sigrid S McCawley, of a prominent law firm, and Brad Edwards of Edwards Henderson, who have consistently advocated for survivors of Epstein’s abuse.

“The financier carried out these offenses by means of not only his own extraordinary wealth and influence, but through financial backing and financial support from both private parties and organizations, including BNY,” the legal filing claims. “Shockingly, 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 international sex trafficking organization under the pretext of legal commercial dealings”. The suit also said the bank neglected to file mandatory financial alerts.

Legal Experts Offer Perspectives on Case Challenges

Experienced lawyers who spoke to the situation said establishing liability would be difficult. But they also identified possible outcomes which could offer comfort to accusers or release of long-sought information.

Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor who established a legal firm, said evidence has to show that an institution’s actions resulted in harm.

“I don’t think the lawsuit has much of a chance of success – and clearly I am on the side of the survivors, and I want them to get answers and legal redress and financial recovery,” Rahmani said. Some claims might be not directly related from a juridical perspective.

“It all comes down to evidence,” he said. A attorney would need to prove causation, which would mean “but for the defendant’s conduct, the injury wouldn’t have occurred”. In this case, that would translate to “absent the institution’s involvement, the survivor maybe wouldn’t have been trafficked”, the lawyer 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 significant element: that is the legal test. So any improper behavior there was, if there was any wrongdoing … the defendant’s misconduct 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, such lawsuits could serve as a warning that associations with those accused of wrongdoing can have damaging implications for them.

“It represents a reputational disaster,” he said. If the financial institutions try to get these cases thrown out and fail, Rahmani expects a swift settlement. “No party desires to pursue any of the Epstein-related cases.”

Attorney Eric Faddis, a litigator and founder of the Colorado law firm Varner Faddis and former prosecutor, said companies can be liable. In this situation, “whether the banks have liability is going to depend, in part, on their level of awareness, if they were informed of claimed misconduct or illegal acts”, and in some way offered support to Epstein.

“However, even in that case, I think it’s going to be difficult to sort of loop the banks into some kind of sex-trafficking scheme. The banks would probably not be aware of the particulars of allegations,” the lawyer said. While the financier’s prior legal case was known, “there’s no law against for a bank to have a client who’s an unsavory person”.

“However, it is unlawful for a financial firm to somehow be complicit in the illegal actions of a client, but these aspects are very different, and so I think that it’s going to be a difficult case against the institutions.”

Possible Advantages for Victims

Nevertheless, important aspects of the litigation could help Epstein survivors.

“The lawsuits have the potential to reveal more information about the continuing Epstein story,” Faddis said. “Even though there have been sort of walls put up at every turn for folks pursuing this data, when there’s a legal action, there’s a evidence-gathering phase, and that discovery process often requires release of information that was not previously public.”

Edwards said in a comment that the suits could have a preventive impact and achieve what lawmakers have been unable to do.

“Legal actions are essential for full accountability for the survivors of the financier – as well as for future would-be victims who will suffer from similar trafficking organizations – if our financial institutions are not held accountable for the essential role each plays, either in supplying the required framework for the illegal operation or recognizing the financial component of these crimes and putting an end to it.

Edwards continued: “Our prospects are significantly higher of making a real difference than Congress, because we understand the facts and background of the case and are not motivated by politics but rather by a genuine desire to create substantial impact and to safeguard the survivors, who have already suffered tremendously.

“We approach these matters without any political agenda and thus will not be swayed by shutdowns, shielding influential figures, or the other shameful political maneuvering you and the rest of the world have had to watch unfold recently.”

McCawley said in a declaration: “While legislators attempt to uncover how Jeffrey Epstein was able to orchestrate his illegal trafficking operation for decades without detection, we are taking a further significant action forward toward legal resolution for victims.”

Bank Responses

When requested for a statement on the legal complaint, BNY said: “The allegations in the case are baseless, and we will vigorously defend against it.”

The bank’s response likewise stated: “We will vigorously defend ourselves in this case.”