🔗 Share this article

Over many years, survivors of Jeffrey Epstein have sought accountability. At one point, it seemed like they would get it.

Epstein’s former associate Ghislaine Maxwell, the financier’s one-time partner, was convicted of sex trafficking four years ago for her involvement in the deceased billionaire’s exploitation of underage females – and given to two decades behind bars.

Meanwhile, banks that had done business with Epstein, although not accepting fault, agreed to pay hundreds of millions in agreements to victims. Donald Trump even made releasing the Epstein investigative files part of his election promises, and doubled down on his promise to do so in recent months.

Ultimately, the administration’s Department of Justice did not make public these records, and his administration has become embroiled in reports about social ties between him and Epstein. Congressional promises to release files have stalled, due to political jockeying and delays from federal authorities.

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

Legal Actions Target Leading Financial Institutions

These lawsuits, filed by an anonymous plaintiff against a major U.S. bank and the BNY Mellon, claim that these banking giants unlawfully facilitated Epstein’s sex trafficking. The cases are helmed by attorney Sigrid McCawley, of Boies Schiller Flexner, and lawyer Brad Edwards of his legal practice, who have consistently advocated for 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 private parties and organizations, including BNY,” one lawsuit claims. “Egregiously, the institution had a plethora of information regarding Epstein’s trafficking network but chose profit over protecting the victims.”

The complaint against Bank of America echoes these allegations, declaring the institution “knowingly provided the monetary resources and the appearance of respectability for Epstein and his co-conspirators to fuel their global trafficking enterprise under the pretext of non-criminal business activities”. The suit also said the bank failed to file mandatory financial alerts.

Legal Experts Weigh In on Legal Hurdles

Experienced lawyers who commented on the matter said proving such a case would be challenging. But they also identified possible outcomes which could offer comfort to accusers or release of previously hidden details.

Attorney Neama Rahmani, a ex-government lawyer who established a legal firm, said proof has to show that an institution’s actions resulted in harm.

“In my view, the case faces significant obstacles – and obviously I am on the side of the survivors, and I want them to get explanations and legal redress and compensation,” Rahmani said. Certain allegations might be not directly related from a juridical perspective.

“It all comes down to evidence,” he said. A lawyer would need to prove cause and effect, which would mean “if not for the bank’s actions, the injury wouldn’t have occurred”. In this instance, that would boil down to “but for the bank’s conduct, the survivor maybe wouldn’t have been trafficked”, Rahmani clarified.

A lawyer would also have to go further than a “but for” measure. “It’s not solely about indirect cause. It also has to be a significant element: that is the standard. So whatever misconduct there was, if there was any misconduct … the defendant’s misconduct has to have been a substantial factor in leading to the victim’s suffering.

“Through maintaining financial ties to Epstein, is that a substantial factor? It’s uncertain.”

Liability aside, 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,” Rahmani noted. If the financial institutions try to get these cases thrown out and are unsuccessful, Rahmani anticipates a swift settlement. “No one wants to go litigate any of the Epstein-related cases.”

Eric Faddis, a litigator and principal of the Colorado law firm Varner Faddis and former prosecutor, said companies can be responsible. In this scenario, “whether the banks have liability is going to hinge, in part, on their level of awareness, whether they had any knowledge of alleged abuse or illegal acts”, and somehow offered support to Epstein.

“But even then, I think it’s going to be hard to sort of loop the financial entities into some kind of trafficking operation. The institutions would likely not be aware of the particulars of claims,” Faddis said. While Epstein’s Florida conviction was public, “there’s no law against for a bank to have a client who’s an disreputable individual”.

“It is illegal for a financial firm to in any way 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 banks.”

Possible Advantages for Survivors

Nevertheless, important aspects of the legal proceedings could help those affected by Epstein.

“These cases may uncover additional details about the ongoing Epstein saga,” the attorney said. “Even though there have been obstacles erected at every turn for folks pursuing this information, when there’s a lawsuit, there’s a discovery process, and that legal procedure often requires release of information that was not formerly available.”

Edwards said in a statement that the suits could have a deterrent effect and achieve what legislators have failed to do.

“Legal actions are essential for full accountability for the survivors 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 essential role each plays, either in providing the required framework for the illegal operation or identifying the monetary aspect of these crimes and putting an end to it.

Edwards continued: “Our prospects are significantly higher of effecting meaningful change than Congress, because we understand 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 safeguard the survivors, who have already suffered tremendously.

“We approach these matters without any partisan motives and thus cannot be deterred by shutdowns, protecting wealthy politically connected individuals, or the other embarrassing partisan gamesmanship you and the rest of the world have had to observe recently.”

McCawley said in a statement: “As Congress works toward unraveling how the financier was able to orchestrate his criminal sex-trafficking enterprise for decades without being caught, we are taking a further significant action forward toward legal resolution for victims.”

Institutional Reactions

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

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