🔗 Share this article

For years, survivors of the late financier 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 in a 2021 trial for her involvement in the deceased billionaire’s sexual abuse of underage females – and given to 20 years imprisonment.

Meanwhile, financial firms that had done business with Epstein, while not accepting fault, agreed to pay hundreds of millions in agreements to victims. Former President Trump even made disclosing the documents related to the Epstein probe part of his election promises, and doubled down on his commitment to do so early this year.

Ultimately, the administration’s Department of Justice did not make public these records, and his government has become embroiled in reports about social ties between him and Epstein. Congressional promises to release files have lagged, due to political jockeying and justice department foot-dragging.

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

Legal Actions Target Leading Financial Institutions

These lawsuits, filed by an unnamed accuser against a major U.S. bank and the Bank of New York Mellon (BNY), allege that these banking giants unlawfully facilitated Epstein’s sex trafficking. The suits are helmed by attorney Sigrid McCawley, of a prominent law firm, and Brad Edwards of his legal practice, who have consistently advocated for Epstein victims.

“Epstein committed these crimes by means of not only his own extraordinary wealth and influence, but through financial backing and monetary assistance from both private parties and institutions, including the bank,” the legal filing states. “Shockingly, the institution had a plethora of information regarding Epstein’s trafficking network but chose profit over protecting the victims.”

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 co-conspirators to fuel their global trafficking enterprise under the pretext of non-criminal business activities”. The suit also said Bank of America failed to file suspicious activity reports.

Legal Experts Weigh In on Case Challenges

Experienced lawyers who commented on the matter said proving such a case would be challenging. But they also identified possible outcomes which could provide solace to plaintiffs or disclosure of long-sought information.

Attorney Neama Rahmani, a ex-government lawyer who established West Coast Trial lawyers, said proof has to show that an bank’s conduct 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 answers and legal redress and compensation,” Rahmani said. Certain allegations might be too tangential from a legal standpoint.

“It all comes down to evidence,” Rahmani said. A attorney would need to prove causation, which would mean “but for the defendant’s conduct, the injury wouldn’t have occurred”. In this case, that would boil down to “absent the institution’s involvement, the survivor maybe wouldn’t have been exploited”, the lawyer clarified.

A lawyer would also have to go further than a “but for” measure. “It’s not solely about indirect cause. It also has to be a substantial factor: that is the legal test. So any improper behavior there was, if there was any misconduct … the bank’s actions has to have been a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff harm.

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

Regardless of legal responsibility, such lawsuits could serve as a warning that relationships with those involved in alleged crimes can have negative consequences for them.

“It’s a PR nightmare,” Rahmani noted. If the financial institutions try to get these suits thrown out and fail, the attorney anticipates a swift settlement. “No party desires to pursue any of the legal matters tied to Epstein.”

Attorney 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, “if the institutions bear fault is going to depend, in part, on their level of awareness, if they were informed of claimed misconduct or illegal acts”, and in some way offered support to Epstein.

“But even then, I think it’s going to be difficult to sort of loop the financial entities into some kind of sex-trafficking scheme. The banks would likely not be aware of the details of claims,” the lawyer said. While the financier’s prior legal case was known, “there’s no law against for a financial institution to have a customer who’s an disreputable individual”.

“It is illegal for a financial firm to in any way be complicit in the illegal actions of a client, but these aspects are very different, and so I think that it’s going to be a tough lawsuit against the institutions.”

Potential Benefits for Survivors

That said, important aspects of the litigation could assist those affected by Epstein.

“The lawsuits have the potential to reveal more information about the ongoing Epstein saga,” the attorney said. “Despite the fact that 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 disclosure of information that was not formerly available.”

Attorney Brad Edwards said in a comment that the lawsuits could have a deterrent effect and achieve what legislators have been unable to do.

“The lawsuits are necessary for complete justice for the victims of the financier – as well as for potential targets who will suffer from comparable criminal networks – if our financial institutions are not held accountable for the crucial part each performs, either in supplying the required framework for the criminal enterprise or identifying the financial component of these crimes and stopping it.

Edwards continued: “We have a far better chance of making a real difference than lawmakers, because we understand the facts and background of the case and are not motivated by politics but rather by a genuine desire to create substantial impact and to protect the victims, who have already endured immense pain.

“We approach these matters 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 statement: “While legislators attempt to uncover how Jeffrey Epstein was able to conduct his criminal sex-trafficking enterprise for many years without detection, we are taking a further significant action forward toward justice for victims.”

Institutional Reactions

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

Bank of America’s statement similarly remarked: “We intend to firmly protect our interests in this matter.”