🔗 Share this article

For years, victims of Jeffrey Epstein have demanded accountability. For a while, it appeared like they would achieve it.

Epstein’s former associate Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s ex-girlfriend, was convicted of sex trafficking four years ago for her role in the late financier’s sexual abuse of teen girls – and given to 20 years imprisonment.

At the same time, banks that had done business with Epstein, although not accepting fault, agreed to pay hundreds of millions in settlements to survivors. Donald Trump even made disclosing the documents related to the Epstein probe part of his election promises, and reiterated on his commitment to do so in recent months.

In the end, the administration’s Department of Justice did not release these records, and his administration has become involved in allegations about social ties between him and Epstein. Congressional promises to release files have stalled, due to political jockeying and delays from federal authorities.

However two new lawsuits could provide clarity on Epstein’s operations amid the stalemate – regardless of their outcome.

Lawsuits Aim at 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 financial powerhouses illicitly enabled Epstein’s trafficking ring. The suits are led by attorney Sigrid McCawley, of Boies Schiller Flexner, 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 access to funding and financial support from both private parties and institutions, including BNY,” the legal filing claims. “Egregiously, BNY had a plethora of information regarding Epstein’s trafficking network but chose profit over safeguarding those harmed.”

The Bank of America suit echoes these allegations, asserting the institution “knowingly provided the monetary resources and the veneer of institutional legitimacy for Epstein and his co-conspirators to fuel their international sex trafficking organization under the guise of legal commercial dealings”. The legal action also said Bank of America neglected to file mandatory financial alerts.

Attorneys Weigh In on Legal Hurdles

Experienced lawyers who commented on the matter said proving such a case would be challenging. But they also identified potential results which could offer comfort to plaintiffs or disclosure of previously hidden details.

Attorney Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor who established a legal firm, said evidence has to show that an institution’s actions led to 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 answers and criminal justice and financial recovery,” the attorney said. Some claims might be too tangential from a juridical perspective.

“The case hinges on proof,” he said. A lawyer would need to prove cause and effect, which would mean “but for the defendant’s conduct, the injury wouldn’t have happened”. In this case, that would translate to “absent the institution’s involvement, the victim maybe wouldn’t have been exploited”, the lawyer explained.

An attorney would also have to go further than a “but for” measure. “Is not just ‘but for’ causation. It also has to be a substantial factor: that is the standard. So whatever misconduct there was, if there was any misconduct … the bank’s actions has to have been a key contributor in leading to the victim’s suffering.

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

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

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

Eric Faddis, a trial attorney and principal of the legal practice Varner Faddis and former prosecutor, said corporations can be responsible. 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 claimed misconduct or illegal acts”, and somehow provided assistance to Epstein.

“However, even in that case, I think it’s going to be hard to sort of loop the financial entities into some kind of trafficking operation. The institutions would likely not be privy to the details of allegations,” Faddis said. While Epstein’s Florida conviction was known, “it’s not illegal for a bank to have a client who’s an unsavory person”.

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

Possible Advantages for Survivors

Nevertheless, key elements of the litigation could help Epstein survivors.

“The lawsuits have the potential to reveal more information about the continuing Epstein story,” 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 release of materials that was not previously public.”

Edwards said in a comment that the lawsuits could have a preventive impact and achieve what legislators have failed to do.

“The lawsuits are necessary for complete justice for the victims of Jeffrey Epstein – as well as for potential targets who will be harmed from comparable criminal networks – if our financial institutions are not held accountable for the essential role each performs, either in supplying the required framework 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 details and background of the matter and are not driven by politics but rather by a sincere intention to make a real difference and to protect the survivors, who have already suffered tremendously.

“Our handling of these issues without any political agenda 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 observe recently.”

Attorney Sigrid McCawley said in a declaration: “While legislators attempt to uncover how the financier was able to orchestrate his criminal sex-trafficking enterprise for decades without detection, we are taking another important step forward toward legal resolution for survivors.”

Institutional Reactions

Asked for comment 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 similarly remarked: “We will vigorously defend ourselves in this matter.”