🔗 Share this article

For years, survivors of Jeffrey Epstein have sought justice. For a while, it appeared like they would achieve it.

Epstein’s former associate Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s ex-girlfriend, was found guilty of human trafficking four years ago for her involvement in the late financier’s sexual abuse of underage females – and sentenced to 20 years imprisonment.

At the same time, financial firms that had done business with Epstein, although not accepting fault, paid hundreds of millions in settlements to victims. Donald Trump even made releasing the documents related to the Epstein probe part of his election promises, and doubled down on his promise to do so in recent months.

Ultimately, Trump’s justice department did not release these records, and his administration has become embroiled in reports about social ties between him and Epstein. Congressional promises to disclose documents have lagged, due to political jockeying and justice department foot-dragging.

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

Legal Actions Target Leading Financial Institutions

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 illicitly enabled Epstein’s sex trafficking. The suits are helmed by attorney Sigrid McCawley, of a prominent law firm, and lawyer Brad Edwards of Edwards Henderson, who have long represented survivors of Epstein’s abuse.

“Epstein committed these crimes by means of not only his own extraordinary wealth and influence, but through financial backing and financial support from both private parties and organizations, including the bank,” one lawsuit claims. “Shockingly, BNY had a abundance of knowledge regarding Epstein’s trafficking network but chose profit over protecting the victims.”

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

Legal Experts Offer Perspectives on Case Challenges

Longtime attorneys who commented on the matter said proving such a case would be difficult. But they also identified potential results 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 victims, and I want them to get explanations and criminal justice and financial recovery,” Rahmani said. Some claims might be too tangential from a juridical perspective.

“It all comes down to evidence,” Rahmani said. A lawyer would need to prove cause and effect, which would mean “if not for the bank’s actions, the injury wouldn’t have occurred”. 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. “It’s not solely about indirect cause. It also has to be a significant element: that is the standard. So whatever misconduct there was, if there was any misconduct … the bank’s actions has to have been a substantial factor in leading to the victim’s suffering.

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

Regardless of legal responsibility, suits like this could put institutions on notice that relationships with those accused of wrongdoing can have damaging implications for them.

“It represents a reputational disaster,” Rahmani noted. If the financial institutions try to get these cases dismissed and fail, Rahmani anticipates a quick resolution. “No one wants to go litigate any of the legal matters tied to Epstein.”

Attorney Eric Faddis, a trial attorney and principal of the Colorado law firm Varner Faddis and ex-government lawyer, said companies can be liable. In this situation, “if the institutions bear fault is going to depend, in part, on their level of awareness, whether they had any knowledge of alleged abuse or illegal acts”, and somehow provided assistance to Epstein.

“But even then, I think it’s going to be hard to effectively connect the financial entities into some kind of trafficking operation. The banks would probably not be aware of the details of allegations,” the lawyer said. While Epstein’s Florida conviction was public, “it’s not illegal for a bank to have a customer who’s an unsavory person”.

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

Potential Benefits for Survivors

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

“These cases may uncover additional details about the ongoing Epstein saga,” the attorney said. “Even though there have been obstacles erected at every turn for individuals seeking 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.”

Edwards said in a comment that the suits could have a deterrent effect and achieve what legislators have failed to do.

“Legal actions are essential for full accountability for the victims of the financier – as well as for future would-be victims who will be harmed from similar trafficking organizations – if our banks are not held accountable for the essential role each performs, either in providing the required framework for the criminal enterprise or recognizing the financial component of these offenses and stopping it.

He added: “Our prospects are significantly higher of effecting meaningful change than Congress, because we understand the facts and background of the case and are not motivated by partisan interests but rather by a sincere intention to create substantial impact and to safeguard the survivors, who have already suffered tremendously.

“We approach these matters without any political agenda and thus cannot be deterred by shutdowns, shielding influential figures, or the other embarrassing partisan gamesmanship you and the rest of the world have had to watch unfold recently.”

McCawley said in a declaration: “While legislators attempt to uncover how the financier was able to conduct his illegal trafficking operation for decades without detection, we are taking a further significant action forward toward legal resolution for victims.”

Institutional Reactions

Asked for comment on the legal complaint, BNY said: “The allegations in the case are baseless, and we will vigorously defend against it.”

The bank’s response similarly remarked: “We intend to firmly protect our interests in this case.”