🔗 Share this article

Over many 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 four years ago for her role in the deceased billionaire’s exploitation of underage females – and given to 20 years imprisonment.

Meanwhile, financial firms that had worked with Epstein, although not admitting wrongdoing, agreed to pay hundreds of millions in agreements to victims. Former President Trump even made disclosing the Epstein investigative files part of his election promises, and doubled down on his commitment to do so in recent months.

Ultimately, the administration’s Department of Justice did not release these records, and his administration has become embroiled in reports about personal connections between him and Epstein. Assurances from lawmakers to disclose documents have lagged, due to political jockeying and delays from federal authorities.

However recent legal actions could provide clarity on Epstein’s operations amid the deadlock – irrespective of their result.

Lawsuits Aim at Major Banks

The legal complaints, filed by an unnamed accuser against a major U.S. bank and the BNY Mellon, claim that these financial powerhouses illicitly enabled Epstein’s sex trafficking. The cases are helmed by attorney Sigrid McCawley, of Boies Schiller Flexner, and lawyer Brad Edwards of Edwards Henderson, who have consistently advocated for survivors of Epstein’s abuse.

“Epstein committed these crimes by means of not only his own extraordinary wealth and influence, but through access to funding and monetary assistance from both individuals and institutions, including the bank,” one lawsuit claims. “Egregiously, the institution had a plethora of information regarding Epstein’s trafficking network but opted for financial gain over safeguarding those harmed.”

The complaint against Bank of America mirrors these claims, declaring the institution “knowingly provided the monetary resources and the veneer of institutional legitimacy for Epstein and his accomplices to fuel their global trafficking enterprise under the guise of legal commercial dealings”. The suit also said Bank of America failed to file suspicious activity reports.

Attorneys Offer Perspectives on Legal Hurdles

Experienced lawyers who spoke to the matter said establishing liability would be challenging. But they also noted possible outcomes which could provide solace to plaintiffs or release of previously hidden details.

Attorney 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.

“In my view, the case faces significant obstacles – and obviously 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 juridical perspective.

“It all comes down to evidence,” 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 boil down to “but for the bank’s conduct, the survivor maybe wouldn’t have been trafficked”, Rahmani explained.

A lawyer 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 legal test. So whatever misconduct there was, if there was any wrongdoing … the bank’s actions 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? I don’t know.”

Regardless of legal responsibility, such lawsuits could serve as a warning that relationships with those accused of wrongdoing can have negative consequences for them.

“It’s a PR nightmare,” Rahmani noted. If the banks try to get these cases thrown out and are unsuccessful, the attorney anticipates a quick resolution. “No party desires to pursue any of the Epstein-related cases.”

Eric Faddis, a trial attorney and principal of the Colorado law firm Varner Faddis and ex-government lawyer, said corporations can be responsible. 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 alleged abuse or illegal acts”, and somehow provided assistance to Epstein.

“However, even in that case, I think it’s going to be difficult to effectively connect the banks into some kind of trafficking operation. The banks would probably not be privy to the particulars of allegations,” the lawyer said. While Epstein’s Florida conviction was known, “there’s no law against for a financial institution to have a client who’s an disreputable individual”.

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

Possible Advantages for Survivors

That said, key elements of the legal proceedings could help Epstein survivors.

“These cases may uncover additional details 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 information, when there’s a lawsuit, there’s a evidence-gathering phase, and that discovery process often requires release of materials that was not previously public.”

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

“Legal actions are essential for full accountability for the victims of Jeffrey Epstein – as well as for future would-be victims who will be harmed 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 financial component of these crimes and putting an end to it.

He added: “Our prospects are significantly higher of making a real difference than Congress, because we understand the details and history of the case and are not driven by politics but rather by a genuine desire to create substantial impact and to protect the survivors, who have already suffered tremendously.

“Our handling of these issues without any partisan motives 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 declaration: “While legislators attempt to uncover how Jeffrey Epstein was able to conduct his criminal sex-trafficking enterprise for many years without being caught, we are taking another important step forward toward justice for survivors.”

Bank Responses

Asked for comment on the lawsuit, BNY said: “The allegations in the case are baseless, and we will strongly contest against it.”

The bank’s response similarly remarked: “We will vigorously defend ourselves in this matter.”