🔗 Share this article

For years, survivors of Jeffrey Epstein have demanded justice. At one point, it seemed like they would get it.

Ghislaine Maxwell, the financier’s one-time partner, was found guilty of human trafficking in a 2021 trial for her role in the deceased billionaire’s exploitation of underage females – and given to 20 years imprisonment.

Meanwhile, banks that had done business with Epstein, while not admitting wrongdoing, agreed to pay hundreds of millions in agreements to survivors. Donald Trump even made releasing the documents related to the Epstein probe part of his campaign platform, and reiterated on his commitment to do so in recent months.

In the end, Trump’s justice department did not make public these files, and his government has become involved in reports about social ties between him and Epstein. Assurances from lawmakers to disclose documents have lagged, due to partisan maneuvering and delays from federal authorities.

But two new lawsuits could shed light on Epstein’s activities amid the deadlock – irrespective 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, allege that these financial powerhouses illicitly enabled Epstein’s trafficking ring. The cases are helmed by Sigrid S McCawley, of a prominent law firm, and Brad Edwards of Edwards Henderson, who have long represented Epstein victims.

“Epstein committed these crimes by means of not only his own vast fortune and influence, but through financial backing and financial support from both private parties and organizations, including the bank,” the legal filing states. “Egregiously, BNY had a abundance of knowledge regarding Epstein’s trafficking network but opted for financial gain 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 guise of non-criminal business activities”. The suit also said Bank of America neglected to file mandatory financial alerts.

Legal Experts Weigh In on Legal Hurdles

Experienced lawyers who spoke to the matter said proving such a case would be difficult. But they also identified possible outcomes which could provide solace to accusers or disclosure of long-sought information.

Attorney Neama Rahmani, a ex-government lawyer 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 answers and criminal justice and financial recovery,” the attorney said. Certain allegations might be too tangential from a juridical perspective.

“The case hinges on proof,” Rahmani 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 happened”. In this instance, that would boil down to “but for the bank’s conduct, the victim maybe wouldn’t have been exploited”, the lawyer explained.

An attorney would also have to go beyond a “but for” measure. “Is not just ‘but for’ causation. It also has to be a significant element: that is the legal test. So any improper behavior there was, if there was any misconduct … the defendant’s misconduct has to have been a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff harm.

“By engaging in a business relationship with Epstein, is that a decisive element? It’s uncertain.”

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 represents a reputational disaster,” Rahmani noted. If the banks try to get these suits dismissed and are unsuccessful, the attorney expects a quick resolution. “No one wants to go litigate any of the Epstein-related cases.”

Eric Faddis, a trial attorney and principal of the legal practice Varner Faddis and former prosecutor, 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 alleged abuse 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 institutions would likely not be privy to the particulars of allegations,” Faddis said. While the financier’s prior legal case was public, “there’s no law against for a financial institution to have a customer who’s an disreputable individual”.

“However, it is unlawful for a financial firm to somehow be involved 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.”

Possible Advantages for Survivors

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

“These cases may uncover additional details about the continuing Epstein story,” Faddis said. “Despite the fact that there have been obstacles erected at every turn for folks seeking this data, when there’s a legal action, there’s a discovery process, and that legal procedure often mandates disclosure of materials that was not formerly available.”

Edwards said in a statement that the suits could have a deterrent effect and accomplish what lawmakers have been unable to do.

“The lawsuits are necessary for complete justice for the survivors of Jeffrey Epstein – as well as for potential targets who will be harmed from similar trafficking organizations – if our banks are not made responsible for the crucial part each performs, 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: “Our prospects are significantly higher of effecting meaningful change than Congress, because we understand the details and history of the case and are not motivated by politics but rather by a genuine desire to make a real difference and to safeguard the victims, who have already endured immense pain.

“We approach these matters without any partisan motives and thus will not be swayed by obstructions, protecting wealthy politically connected individuals, or the other shameful political maneuvering you and the rest of the world have had to watch unfold recently.”

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

Institutional Reactions

Asked for comment 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 similarly remarked: “We intend to firmly protect our interests in this matter.”