🔗 Share this article

Over many years, victims of the late financier Jeffrey Epstein have sought accountability. For a while, it appeared like they would achieve it.

Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s ex-girlfriend, was convicted of sex trafficking four years ago for her role in the deceased billionaire’s sexual abuse of underage females – and given to two decades behind bars.

Meanwhile, financial firms that had worked with Epstein, although not accepting fault, paid substantial sums in agreements to victims. Donald Trump even made releasing 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, Trump’s justice department did not make public these records, and his government has become embroiled in allegations about personal connections between him and Epstein. Congressional promises to disclose documents have stalled, due to partisan maneuvering and justice department foot-dragging.

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

Lawsuits Aim at Major Banks

The legal complaints, filed by an anonymous plaintiff against Bank of America and the BNY Mellon, allege that these banking giants illicitly enabled Epstein’s trafficking ring. The suits are helmed by Sigrid S McCawley, of Boies Schiller Flexner, and lawyer Brad Edwards of Edwards Henderson, who have long represented 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 institutions, including BNY,” the legal filing states. “Shockingly, the institution had a plethora of information regarding Epstein’s trafficking network but opted for financial gain over protecting the victims.”

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

Legal Experts Weigh In on Case Challenges

Longtime attorneys who spoke to the matter said establishing liability would be challenging. But they also noted possible outcomes which could offer comfort to plaintiffs or disclosure of long-sought information.

Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor who established West Coast Trial lawyers, said proof has to show that an bank’s conduct led to 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,” the attorney said. Some claims might be too tangential from a legal standpoint.

“The case hinges on proof,” Rahmani said. A attorney would need to prove cause and effect, which would mean “but for the defendant’s conduct, the harm wouldn’t have happened”. In this instance, that would translate to “but for the bank’s conduct, the survivor maybe wouldn’t have been exploited”, the lawyer explained.

An attorney would also have to go further than 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 misconduct … the defendant’s misconduct has to have been a key contributor in leading to the plaintiff harm.

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

Liability aside, such lawsuits could serve as a warning that relationships with those involved in alleged crimes can have damaging implications for them.

“It represents a reputational disaster,” he said. If the banks try to get these suits thrown out 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 Colorado law firm Varner Faddis and ex-government lawyer, said corporations can be liable. In this scenario, “whether the banks have liability is going to depend, in part, on what the banks knew, if they were informed of alleged abuse or illegal acts”, and somehow 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 banks would probably not be privy to 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 involved in the criminal activity of a customer, but these aspects are distinct, and so I think that it’s going to be a tough lawsuit against the banks.”

Potential Benefits for Victims

Nevertheless, key elements of the legal proceedings could assist Epstein survivors.

“These cases may uncover additional details about the continuing Epstein story,” Faddis said. “Despite the fact that there have been sort of walls put up at every turn for folks seeking this information, when there’s a legal action, there’s a evidence-gathering phase, and that discovery process often requires release of information that was not formerly available.”

Attorney Brad Edwards said in a comment that the lawsuits could have a deterrent effect and accomplish what legislators have been unable 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 suffer from similar trafficking organizations – if our financial institutions are not made responsible for the crucial part each performs, either in supplying the necessary infrastructure for the illegal operation or identifying the monetary aspect of these crimes and putting an end to it.

Edwards continued: “We have a far better chance of making a real difference than lawmakers, because we understand the details and background 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 suffered tremendously.

“We approach these matters without any political agenda and thus cannot be deterred by shutdowns, protecting wealthy politically connected individuals, or the other embarrassing partisan gamesmanship 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 illegal trafficking operation for decades without being caught, we are taking another important step forward toward justice for victims.”

Institutional Reactions

When requested for a statement on the legal complaint, the Bank of New York Mellon said: “The claims in the lawsuit are meritless, and we will strongly contest against it.”

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