🔗 Share this article

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

Epstein’s former associate Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s ex-girlfriend, was found guilty of human trafficking four years ago for her involvement in the deceased billionaire’s exploitation of underage females – and given to 20 years imprisonment.

Meanwhile, financial firms that had done business with Epstein, while not admitting wrongdoing, paid substantial sums in agreements to survivors. Donald Trump even made disclosing the documents related to the Epstein probe part of his election promises, and doubled down on his commitment to do so early this year.

In the end, the administration’s Department of Justice did not make public these files, and his administration has become embroiled in allegations about social ties between him and Epstein. Congressional promises to disclose documents have stalled, due to partisan maneuvering and justice department foot-dragging.

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

Lawsuits Target Leading Financial Institutions

These lawsuits, submitted 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 trafficking ring. The suits are led by attorney Sigrid McCawley, of a prominent law firm, and lawyer Brad Edwards of Edwards Henderson, who have long represented Epstein victims.

“Epstein committed these crimes by means of not only his own extraordinary wealth and influence, but through access to funding and financial support from both individuals and institutions, including BNY,” one lawsuit claims. “Egregiously, BNY had a plethora of information regarding Epstein’s sex trafficking operation but chose profit over safeguarding those harmed.”

The complaint against Bank of America echoes these allegations, asserting the institution “knowingly provided the financial support and the appearance of respectability for Epstein and his accomplices to support their global trafficking enterprise under the guise of legal commercial dealings”. The legal action also said Bank of America failed to file suspicious activity reports.

Attorneys Offer Perspectives on Case Challenges

Experienced lawyers who commented on 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 previously hidden details.

Attorney Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor who founded a legal firm, said evidence has to show that an institution’s actions led to harm.

“In my view, the case faces significant obstacles – and clearly I am on the side of the victims, and I want them to get explanations 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 “but for the defendant’s conduct, the harm wouldn’t have happened”. In this case, that would translate to “absent the institution’s involvement, the survivor maybe wouldn’t have been exploited”, 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 standard. So whatever misconduct there was, if there was any misconduct … 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 associations with those accused of wrongdoing can have damaging implications for them.

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

Attorney Eric Faddis, a litigator and principal of the Colorado law firm Varner Faddis and former prosecutor, said companies can be responsible. In this situation, “if the institutions bear fault is going to depend, in part, on their level of awareness, whether they had any knowledge of claimed misconduct or illegal acts”, and somehow offered support to Epstein.

“However, even in that case, I think it’s going to be difficult to effectively connect the financial entities into some kind of sex-trafficking scheme. The banks would likely not be aware of the particulars of claims,” the lawyer said. While the financier’s prior legal case was public, “it’s not illegal for a financial institution to have a client who’s an unsavory person”.

“However, it is unlawful for a bank to in any way be involved in the illegal actions of a customer, 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 litigation could assist those affected by Epstein.

“The lawsuits have the potential to reveal more information about the ongoing Epstein saga,” Faddis said. “Despite the fact that there have been sort of walls put up at every turn for individuals seeking this data, when there’s a lawsuit, there’s a evidence-gathering phase, and that legal procedure often mandates release of materials that was not previously public.”

Attorney Brad Edwards said in a statement that the suits could have a deterrent effect and achieve what lawmakers have been unable 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 comparable criminal networks – if our banks are not made responsible for the crucial part each plays, either in providing the necessary infrastructure for the criminal enterprise or identifying the monetary aspect of these offenses and putting an end to it.

Edwards continued: “We have a far better chance of making a real difference than Congress, because we know the facts and background of the case and are not driven by partisan interests 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 obstructions, protecting wealthy politically connected individuals, 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 statement: “While legislators attempt to uncover how the financier was able to conduct his criminal sex-trafficking enterprise for many years without detection, we are taking another important step forward toward legal resolution for survivors.”

Bank Responses

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 vigorously defend against it.”

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