🔗 Share this article

Over many years, victims of Jeffrey Epstein have demanded justice. At one point, it appeared like they would get it.

Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s ex-girlfriend, was convicted of sex trafficking in a 2021 trial for her role in the late financier’s exploitation of teen girls – and given to two decades behind bars.

At the same time, banks that had worked with Epstein, while not admitting wrongdoing, paid substantial sums in agreements to victims. Donald Trump even made disclosing the Epstein investigative files part of his campaign platform, and doubled down on his commitment to do so early this year.

In the end, Trump’s justice department did not release these records, and his government has become involved in allegations about social ties between him and Epstein. Congressional promises to disclose documents have stalled, due to political jockeying and justice department foot-dragging.

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

Lawsuits Aim at Leading Financial Institutions

These lawsuits, submitted by an anonymous plaintiff against Bank of America and the BNY Mellon, claim that these financial powerhouses unlawfully facilitated Epstein’s trafficking ring. The cases are led by attorney Sigrid McCawley, of a prominent law firm, and lawyer Brad Edwards of his legal practice, who have long represented survivors of Epstein’s abuse.

“Epstein committed these crimes by means of not only his own vast fortune and power, but through financial backing and financial support from both individuals and institutions, including BNY,” one lawsuit claims. “Egregiously, the institution had a abundance of knowledge regarding Epstein’s sex trafficking operation but chose profit over safeguarding those harmed.”

The Bank of America suit echoes these allegations, asserting the institution “knowingly provided the financial support and the appearance of respectability for Epstein and his co-conspirators to support their international sex trafficking organization under the pretext of non-criminal business activities”. The suit also said Bank of America neglected to file suspicious activity reports.

Legal Experts Offer Perspectives on Legal Hurdles

Longtime attorneys who spoke to the situation said proving such a case would be difficult. But they also noted potential results which could provide solace to plaintiffs or disclosure of long-sought information.

Neama Rahmani, a ex-government lawyer who founded a legal firm, said evidence 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 answers 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 causation, which would mean “if not for the bank’s actions, the injury wouldn’t have occurred”. In this case, that would translate to “absent the institution’s involvement, the survivor maybe wouldn’t have been trafficked”, Rahmani clarified.

An attorney would also have to go beyond a basic causation test. “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 leading to the victim’s suffering.

“By engaging in a business relationship with Epstein, is that a decisive element? I don’t know.”

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

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

Attorney Eric Faddis, a trial attorney and founder of the legal practice his firm and former prosecutor, said corporations can be responsible. In this situation, “whether the banks have liability is going to depend, in part, on their level of awareness, whether they had any knowledge of claimed misconduct or illegal acts”, and in some way provided assistance to Epstein.

“But even then, 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 allegations,” the lawyer said. While the financier’s prior legal case was known, “it’s not illegal for a bank to have a customer who’s an unsavory person”.

“However, it is unlawful for a bank to in any way be involved in the illegal actions of a customer, but those two issues are distinct, and so I think that it’s going to be a tough lawsuit against the banks.”

Possible Advantages for Survivors

Nevertheless, important aspects of the legal proceedings could assist Epstein survivors.

“The lawsuits have the potential to reveal more information about the ongoing Epstein saga,” Faddis said. “Even though there have been obstacles erected at every turn for folks pursuing this information, when there’s a legal action, there’s a discovery process, and that legal procedure often mandates release of materials that was not formerly available.”

Attorney Brad Edwards said in a comment that the lawsuits could have a preventive impact and accomplish what lawmakers 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 comparable criminal networks – if our financial institutions are not made responsible for the crucial part each performs, either in supplying the necessary infrastructure for the criminal enterprise or identifying the monetary aspect of these crimes and stopping it.

He added: “Our prospects are significantly higher of effecting meaningful change than lawmakers, because we know the facts and background of the case and are not driven by politics but rather by a genuine desire to create substantial impact and to protect the victims, who have already endured immense pain.

“Our handling of these issues without any partisan motives and thus cannot be deterred 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: “While legislators attempt to uncover how Jeffrey Epstein was able to conduct his illegal trafficking operation for decades without being caught, we are taking a further significant action forward toward legal resolution for victims.”

Institutional Reactions

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

Bank of America’s statement likewise stated: “We intend to firmly protect our interests in this case.”