🔗 Share this article

Over many years, survivors of Jeffrey Epstein have demanded accountability. For a while, 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 involvement in the deceased billionaire’s exploitation of teen girls – and given to 20 years imprisonment.

Meanwhile, banks that had worked with Epstein, although not accepting fault, agreed to pay substantial sums in settlements to victims. Donald Trump even made releasing the documents related to the Epstein probe part of his campaign platform, and reiterated 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 embroiled in reports about social ties between him and Epstein. Assurances from lawmakers to release files have stalled, due to partisan maneuvering and justice department foot-dragging.

But recent legal actions could shed light on Epstein’s operations amid the stalemate – irrespective of their result.

Legal Actions Target Major Banks

These lawsuits, filed by an anonymous plaintiff against Bank of America and the BNY Mellon, claim that these banking giants illicitly enabled Epstein’s sex trafficking. The cases are helmed by attorney Sigrid McCawley, of a prominent law firm, 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 extraordinary wealth and power, but through financial backing and monetary assistance from both individuals and organizations, including BNY,” the legal filing states. “Shockingly, the institution had a abundance of knowledge regarding Epstein’s trafficking network but opted for financial gain over safeguarding those harmed.”

The Bank of America suit echoes these allegations, declaring the institution “knowingly provided the financial support and the appearance of respectability for Epstein and his accomplices to support their international sex trafficking organization under the guise of non-criminal business activities”. The suit also said the bank neglected to file suspicious activity reports.

Legal Experts Offer Perspectives on Legal Hurdles

Longtime attorneys who commented on the matter said establishing liability would be difficult. But they also identified potential results which could provide solace to accusers or disclosure of previously hidden details.

Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor who founded West Coast Trial lawyers, said evidence has to show that an institution’s actions resulted in harm.

“In my view, the case faces significant obstacles – and clearly I am on the side of the survivors, and I want them to get answers and legal redress and compensation,” the attorney said. Some claims might be not directly related from a juridical perspective.

“The case hinges on proof,” he said. A attorney would need to prove causation, which would mean “but for the defendant’s conduct, the harm wouldn’t have occurred”. In this case, that would boil down to “absent the institution’s involvement, the survivor maybe wouldn’t have been trafficked”, Rahmani clarified.

An attorney would also have to go beyond a basic causation test. “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 bank’s actions has to have been a substantial factor in leading to the victim’s suffering.

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

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

“It’s a PR nightmare,” Rahmani noted. If the financial institutions try to get these cases dismissed and fail, Rahmani expects a swift settlement. “No one wants to go litigate any of the Epstein-related cases.”

Attorney Eric Faddis, a trial attorney and principal of the legal practice his firm and ex-government lawyer, said companies can be liable. In this situation, “whether the banks have liability is going to hinge, in part, on what the banks knew, whether they had any knowledge of claimed misconduct or illegal acts”, and somehow provided assistance to Epstein.

“But even then, I think it’s going to be hard to sort of loop the financial entities into some kind of sex-trafficking scheme. The institutions would probably not be privy to the details of allegations,” Faddis said. While the financier’s prior legal case was known, “there’s no law against for a financial institution to have a client who’s an unsavory person”.

“It is illegal for a bank to in any way be involved in the criminal activity of a customer, but those two issues are distinct, 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 assist Epstein survivors.

“The lawsuits have the potential to reveal more information about the continuing Epstein story,” the attorney said. “Despite the fact that there have been sort of walls put up at every turn for folks seeking this data, when there’s a lawsuit, there’s a discovery process, and that legal procedure often mandates release of materials that was not formerly available.”

Edwards said in a comment 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 survivors of the financier – as well as for potential targets who will suffer from comparable criminal networks – if our financial institutions are not made responsible for the essential role each plays, either in supplying the necessary infrastructure for the criminal enterprise or recognizing the financial component of these offenses and putting an end to it.

He added: “We have a far better chance of making a real difference than Congress, because we understand the facts and history of the case and are not motivated by politics but rather by a genuine desire to make a real difference and to protect the survivors, who have already suffered tremendously.

“Our handling of these issues without any political agenda 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.”

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

Bank Responses

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

Bank of America’s statement likewise stated: “We will vigorously defend ourselves in this matter.”