🔗 Share this article

For years, survivors of Jeffrey Epstein have demanded accountability. For a while, it seemed like they would get it.

Ghislaine Maxwell, the financier’s one-time partner, was convicted of human trafficking four years ago for her role in the deceased billionaire’s exploitation of teen girls – and given to two decades behind bars.

At the same time, banks that had done business with Epstein, while not admitting wrongdoing, paid substantial sums in agreements to victims. Donald Trump even made releasing the Epstein investigative files part of his campaign platform, and reiterated on his promise to do so early this year.

In the end, the administration’s Department of Justice did not release these files, and his administration has become involved in allegations about social ties between him and Epstein. Assurances from lawmakers to disclose documents have stalled, due to political jockeying and delays from federal authorities.

However two new lawsuits could provide clarity on Epstein’s activities amid the stalemate – irrespective of their outcome.

Lawsuits Target Major Banks

The legal complaints, submitted by an unnamed accuser against Bank of America and the BNY Mellon, allege that these financial powerhouses unlawfully facilitated Epstein’s sex trafficking. The suits are led by attorney Sigrid McCawley, of a prominent law firm, and Brad Edwards of his legal practice, who have consistently advocated for Epstein victims.

“The financier carried out these offenses by means of not only his own extraordinary wealth and influence, but through access to funding and financial support from both individuals and organizations, including the bank,” the legal filing states. “Shockingly, 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 mirrors these claims, declaring the institution “knowingly provided the financial support and the veneer of institutional legitimacy for Epstein and his co-conspirators to support their global trafficking enterprise under the guise of legal commercial dealings”. The legal action also said the bank neglected to file mandatory financial alerts.

Legal Experts Offer Perspectives on Legal Hurdles

Experienced lawyers who commented on the matter said establishing liability would be difficult. But they also identified possible outcomes which could offer comfort to plaintiffs or disclosure of previously hidden details.

Attorney Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor who established a legal firm, said proof has to show that an bank’s conduct 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 explanations and criminal justice and compensation,” Rahmani said. Certain allegations might be too tangential from a legal standpoint.

“It all comes down to evidence,” he said. A attorney would need to prove cause and effect, which would mean “if not for the bank’s actions, the harm wouldn’t have occurred”. In this case, 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 basic causation test. “Is not just ‘but for’ causation. It also has to be a significant element: that is the standard. So any improper behavior there was, if there was any misconduct … the defendant’s misconduct has to have been a key contributor in causing the victim’s suffering.

“Through maintaining financial ties to Epstein, is that a decisive element? I don’t know.”

Liability aside, suits like this could serve as a warning that relationships with those accused of wrongdoing can have negative consequences for them.

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

Attorney Eric Faddis, a litigator and founder of the legal practice Varner Faddis and ex-government lawyer, 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 claimed misconduct or illegal acts”, and in some way provided assistance to Epstein.

“But even then, I think it’s going to be difficult 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,” the lawyer said. While the financier’s prior legal case was public, “it’s not illegal for a financial institution to have a customer who’s an unsavory person”.

“It is illegal for a bank to somehow be complicit in the criminal activity of a customer, but these aspects are very different, and so I think that it’s going to be a difficult case against the institutions.”

Potential Benefits for Survivors

That said, important aspects of the litigation could help Epstein survivors.

“The lawsuits have the potential to reveal more information about the ongoing Epstein saga,” the attorney said. “Despite the fact that there have been obstacles erected at every turn for folks seeking this information, when there’s a lawsuit, there’s a evidence-gathering phase, and that legal procedure often requires release of information that was not previously public.”

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

“Legal actions are essential for full accountability for the victims of Jeffrey Epstein – as well as for potential targets who will suffer from similar trafficking organizations – if our banks are not held accountable for the crucial part each performs, either in supplying the required framework for the criminal enterprise or recognizing the monetary aspect of these offenses and putting an end to it.

Edwards continued: “Our prospects are significantly higher of effecting meaningful change than lawmakers, because we know the details and history of the case and are not motivated by partisan interests but rather by a genuine desire to make a real difference and to protect the victims, who have already endured immense pain.

“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 observe recently.”

McCawley said in a statement: “While legislators attempt to uncover how the financier 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 survivors.”

Institutional Reactions

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 intend to firmly protect our interests in this matter.”