🔗 Share this article

Over many years, victims of Jeffrey Epstein have demanded accountability. At one point, it seemed like they would achieve it.

Epstein’s former associate Ghislaine Maxwell, the financier’s one-time partner, was found guilty of sex trafficking in a 2021 trial for her role in the deceased billionaire’s sexual abuse of underage females – and sentenced to 20 years imprisonment.

At the same time, financial firms that had done business with Epstein, while not admitting wrongdoing, agreed to pay hundreds of millions in agreements to survivors. Former President Trump even made disclosing the Epstein investigative files part of his election promises, and reiterated on his promise to do so early this year.

Ultimately, Trump’s justice department did not make public these files, and his government has become involved in allegations about personal connections between him and Epstein. Congressional promises to release files have lagged, due to partisan maneuvering and delays from federal authorities.

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

Lawsuits Aim at Major Banks

These lawsuits, submitted by an unnamed accuser against a major U.S. bank and the Bank of New York Mellon (BNY), claim that these banking giants unlawfully facilitated Epstein’s sex trafficking. The cases are led by attorney Sigrid McCawley, of Boies Schiller Flexner, and lawyer Brad Edwards of Edwards Henderson, who have consistently advocated for Epstein victims.

“Epstein committed these crimes by means of not only his own vast fortune and influence, but through financial backing and monetary assistance from both individuals and institutions, including BNY,” one lawsuit claims. “Egregiously, BNY had a abundance of knowledge regarding Epstein’s sex trafficking operation but opted for financial gain over safeguarding those harmed.”

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

Attorneys Weigh In on Case Challenges

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

Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor who founded West Coast Trial lawyers, said proof has to show that an institution’s actions 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 victims, and I want them to get explanations and legal redress and compensation,” the attorney said. Certain allegations might be not directly related from a legal standpoint.

“The case hinges on proof,” Rahmani said. A lawyer would need to prove cause and effect, which would mean “but for the defendant’s conduct, the injury wouldn’t have happened”. In this case, that would translate to “absent the institution’s involvement, the victim maybe wouldn’t have been trafficked”, Rahmani explained.

A lawyer would also have to go further than a “but for” measure. “Is not just ‘but for’ causation. It also has to be a substantial factor: 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.

“By engaging in a business relationship with Epstein, is that a substantial factor? 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 banks try to get these cases dismissed and are unsuccessful, Rahmani anticipates a quick resolution. “No party desires to pursue any of the Epstein-related cases.”

Eric Faddis, a trial attorney and founder of the legal practice his firm and former prosecutor, said corporations 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 criminal wrongdoing”, and in some way provided assistance to Epstein.

“But even then, I think it’s going to be hard to effectively connect the banks into some kind of trafficking operation. The banks would likely not be privy to the details of claims,” Faddis said. While the financier’s prior legal case was known, “it’s not illegal for a bank to have a client who’s an unsavory person”.

“It is illegal for a financial firm to in any way be involved in the illegal actions of a customer, but those two issues are very different, and so I think that it’s going to be a difficult case against the institutions.”

Potential Benefits for Victims

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

“These cases may uncover additional details about the continuing Epstein story,” the attorney said. “Despite the fact that there have been sort of walls put up at every turn for individuals pursuing this data, when there’s a lawsuit, there’s a evidence-gathering phase, and that discovery process often requires disclosure of materials that was not previously public.”

Attorney Brad Edwards said in a comment that the lawsuits could have a preventive impact and accomplish what legislators have failed to do.

“The lawsuits are necessary for complete justice for the survivors of the financier – as well as for future would-be victims who will be harmed from similar trafficking organizations – if our financial institutions are not made responsible for the crucial part each plays, either in supplying the necessary infrastructure for the criminal enterprise or identifying 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 know the details and history of the case and are not driven by politics but rather by a sincere intention to make a real difference and to protect the victims, who have already endured immense pain.

“Our handling of these issues without any partisan motives and thus will not be swayed 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 declaration: “While legislators attempt to uncover how the financier was able to orchestrate his illegal trafficking operation for decades without being caught, we are taking another important step forward toward legal resolution for survivors.”

Bank Responses

Asked for comment on the lawsuit, BNY 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 matter.”