🔗 Share this article

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

Ghislaine Maxwell, the financier’s one-time partner, was found guilty of sex trafficking four years ago for her involvement in the late financier’s exploitation of teen girls – and given to 20 years imprisonment.

At the same time, financial firms that had done business with Epstein, while not accepting fault, paid substantial sums in agreements to survivors. Donald Trump even made disclosing the Epstein investigative files part of his election promises, and doubled down on his commitment to do so in recent months.

Ultimately, Trump’s justice department did not release these files, and his administration has become involved in allegations about personal connections between him and Epstein. Assurances from lawmakers to disclose documents have lagged, due to partisan maneuvering and delays from federal authorities.

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

Lawsuits Target Major Banks

The legal complaints, submitted by an anonymous plaintiff against a major U.S. bank and the BNY Mellon, claim that these banking giants unlawfully facilitated Epstein’s trafficking ring. The suits are helmed by Sigrid S McCawley, of a prominent law firm, and Brad Edwards of Edwards Henderson, who have consistently advocated for survivors of Epstein’s abuse.

“The financier carried out these offenses by means of not only his own extraordinary wealth and power, but through access to funding and monetary assistance from both individuals and organizations, including BNY,” the legal filing claims. “Egregiously, BNY had a abundance of knowledge regarding Epstein’s sex trafficking operation but opted for financial gain over safeguarding those harmed.”

The Bank of America suit echoes these allegations, asserting the institution “knowingly provided the monetary resources and the appearance of respectability for Epstein and his accomplices to fuel their international sex trafficking organization under the pretext of legal commercial dealings”. The suit also said Bank of America failed to file suspicious activity reports.

Legal Experts Weigh In on Case Challenges

Longtime attorneys who spoke to the situation said proving such a case would be challenging. But they also identified possible outcomes which could provide solace to plaintiffs or release of previously hidden details.

Neama Rahmani, a ex-government lawyer 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 clearly I am on the side of the survivors, and I want them to get answers and criminal justice and compensation,” Rahmani said. Certain allegations might be too tangential from a legal standpoint.

“The case hinges on proof,” Rahmani said. A lawyer would need to prove cause and effect, which would mean “if not for the bank’s actions, the harm wouldn’t have happened”. In this instance, that would translate to “absent the institution’s involvement, the survivor maybe wouldn’t have been trafficked”, the lawyer explained.

An attorney 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 standard. So whatever misconduct there was, if there was any wrongdoing … the defendant’s misconduct has to have been a key contributor in leading to the plaintiff harm.

“By engaging in a business relationship with Epstein, is that a substantial factor? It’s uncertain.”

Liability aside, such lawsuits could put institutions on notice that associations with those accused of wrongdoing can have damaging implications for them.

“It’s a PR nightmare,” he said. If the financial institutions try to get these cases dismissed and are unsuccessful, Rahmani anticipates a quick resolution. “No one wants to go litigate any of the Epstein-related cases.”

Eric Faddis, a trial attorney and principal of the legal practice Varner Faddis and ex-government lawyer, said corporations can be liable. In this scenario, “if the institutions bear fault is going to hinge, in part, on what the banks knew, whether they had any knowledge of claimed misconduct or criminal wrongdoing”, and somehow provided assistance to Epstein.

“However, even in that case, I think it’s going to be difficult to effectively connect the financial entities into some kind of sex-trafficking scheme. The banks would probably not be aware of the details of allegations,” Faddis said. While the financier’s prior legal case was known, “it’s not illegal for a bank to have a client who’s an disreputable individual”.

“It is illegal for a financial firm to somehow be involved in the criminal activity 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.”

Potential Benefits for Survivors

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

“These cases may uncover additional details about the continuing Epstein story,” Faddis said. “Despite the fact that there have been obstacles erected at every turn for folks seeking this data, when there’s a legal action, there’s a evidence-gathering phase, and that discovery process often mandates release of materials that was not formerly available.”

Attorney Brad Edwards said in a statement that the lawsuits could have a deterrent effect and achieve what lawmakers 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 banks are not held accountable for the essential role each performs, either in providing the necessary infrastructure 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 know the details and background of the case and are not motivated by partisan interests but rather by a sincere intention to make a real difference and to safeguard the victims, who have already suffered tremendously.

“We approach these matters without any political agenda and thus cannot be deterred by shutdowns, 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 Jeffrey Epstein was able to conduct his illegal trafficking operation for many years without detection, we are taking a further significant action forward toward legal resolution for survivors.”

Bank Responses

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 vigorously defend against it.”

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