🔗 Share this article

For years, survivors of Jeffrey Epstein have demanded justice. For a while, it seemed like they would get it.

Ghislaine Maxwell, the financier’s one-time partner, was convicted of sex trafficking four years ago for her involvement in the late financier’s sexual abuse of teen girls – and sentenced to two decades behind bars.

Meanwhile, financial firms that had done business with Epstein, although not admitting wrongdoing, paid hundreds of millions in settlements to survivors. Former President 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 administration has become embroiled in allegations about social ties between him and Epstein. Congressional promises to disclose documents have stalled, due to partisan maneuvering and delays from federal authorities.

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

Legal Actions Aim at Major Banks

The legal complaints, filed by an unnamed accuser against Bank of America and the BNY Mellon, allege that these banking giants unlawfully facilitated Epstein’s sex trafficking. The suits are led by attorney Sigrid McCawley, of a prominent law firm, and 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, BNY had a abundance of knowledge regarding Epstein’s trafficking network but opted for financial gain over protecting the victims.”

The Bank of America suit echoes these allegations, declaring the institution “deliberately supplied the financial support and the appearance of respectability for Epstein and his accomplices to support their international sex trafficking organization under the pretext of legal commercial dealings”. The legal action also said the bank neglected to file mandatory financial alerts.

Attorneys Weigh In on Legal Hurdles

Experienced lawyers who spoke to the situation said proving such a case would be difficult. But they also noted possible outcomes which could provide solace to accusers or release of long-sought information.

Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor who founded West Coast Trial lawyers, 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,” Rahmani said. Certain allegations might be not directly related from a legal standpoint.

“It all comes down to evidence,” he said. A lawyer would need to prove causation, which would mean “if not for the bank’s actions, the injury wouldn’t have happened”. In this instance, that would boil down 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 “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 defendant’s misconduct has to have been a key contributor in leading to the victim’s suffering.

“Through maintaining financial ties to Epstein, is that a substantial factor? It’s uncertain.”

Regardless of legal responsibility, such lawsuits could put institutions on notice that associations with those accused of wrongdoing can have negative consequences for them.

“It’s a PR nightmare,” he said. If the banks try to get these cases dismissed and fail, Rahmani expects a quick resolution. “No party desires to pursue any of the Epstein-related cases.”

Eric Faddis, a trial attorney and founder of the legal practice his firm and ex-government lawyer, said corporations can be liable. In this scenario, “whether the banks have liability is going to depend, in part, on their level of awareness, if they were informed of alleged abuse or criminal wrongdoing”, and in some way offered support to Epstein.

“However, even in that case, I think it’s going to be hard to sort of loop the banks into some kind of sex-trafficking scheme. The banks would probably not be aware of the details of claims,” Faddis said. While Epstein’s Florida conviction was public, “there’s no law against for a financial institution to have a customer who’s an disreputable individual”.

“However, it is unlawful for a bank to in any way be involved in the illegal actions 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

That said, key elements 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. “Even though there have been obstacles erected 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 mandates disclosure of information that was not formerly available.”

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

“Legal actions are essential for full accountability for the victims of the financier – as well as for potential targets who will be harmed from similar trafficking organizations – if our banks are not made responsible for the essential role each plays, either in providing the necessary infrastructure for the illegal operation or identifying the financial component of these crimes and putting an end to it.

He added: “Our prospects are significantly higher of effecting meaningful change than lawmakers, because we understand the facts and background of the matter and are not driven by partisan interests but rather by a sincere intention to create substantial impact and to protect the survivors, who have already endured immense pain.

“We approach these matters without any partisan motives and thus will not be swayed 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: “As Congress works toward unraveling how the financier was able to orchestrate his criminal sex-trafficking enterprise for decades without detection, we are taking a further significant action forward toward legal resolution for victims.”

Bank Responses

Asked for comment 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.”

Bank of America’s statement likewise stated: “We will vigorously defend ourselves in this matter.”