🔗 Share this article

For years, survivors of Jeffrey Epstein have sought accountability. At one point, it seemed like they would achieve it.

Epstein’s former associate Ghislaine Maxwell, the financier’s one-time partner, was convicted of human trafficking in a 2021 trial for her involvement in the late financier’s sexual abuse of teen girls – and given to 20 years imprisonment.

Meanwhile, financial firms that had worked with Epstein, although not admitting wrongdoing, agreed to pay substantial sums in agreements to survivors. Donald Trump even made disclosing the Epstein investigative files part of his campaign platform, and reiterated on his promise to do so early this year.

Ultimately, the administration’s Department of Justice did not release these records, and his government has become involved in reports about social ties between him and Epstein. Assurances from lawmakers to disclose documents have lagged, due to partisan maneuvering and justice department foot-dragging.

However two new lawsuits could shed light on Epstein’s activities amid the deadlock – regardless of their result.

Lawsuits Aim at Major Banks

These lawsuits, submitted by an unnamed accuser against a major U.S. bank and the BNY Mellon, allege that these banking giants illicitly enabled Epstein’s sex trafficking. The suits are helmed by Sigrid S McCawley, of Boies Schiller Flexner, and lawyer Brad Edwards of his legal practice, who have consistently advocated for survivors of Epstein’s abuse.

“The financier carried out these offenses by means of not only his own vast fortune and influence, but through financial backing and monetary assistance from both individuals and organizations, including BNY,” one lawsuit states. “Egregiously, BNY had a abundance of knowledge regarding Epstein’s trafficking network but chose profit over protecting the victims.”

The complaint against Bank of America mirrors these claims, asserting the institution “knowingly provided the monetary resources and the veneer of institutional legitimacy for Epstein and his co-conspirators to fuel their global trafficking enterprise under the pretext of legal commercial dealings”. The legal action also said the bank failed to file mandatory financial alerts.

Legal Experts Offer Perspectives on Case Challenges

Experienced lawyers who commented on the situation said proving such a case would be difficult. But they also identified potential results which could offer comfort to plaintiffs or disclosure of long-sought information.

Attorney Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor who founded a legal firm, said proof 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 obviously I am on the side of the survivors, and I want them to get explanations and criminal justice and financial recovery,” Rahmani said. Certain allegations might be not directly related from a juridical perspective.

“It all comes down to evidence,” he said. A lawyer would need to prove causation, which would mean “but for the defendant’s conduct, the harm wouldn’t have happened”. In this case, that would translate to “but for the bank’s conduct, the survivor maybe wouldn’t have been trafficked”, Rahmani clarified.

A lawyer 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 standard. So any improper behavior there was, if there was any wrongdoing … the defendant’s misconduct has to have been a key contributor in causing the victim’s suffering.

“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 accused of wrongdoing can have negative consequences for them.

“It’s a PR nightmare,” he said. If the banks try to get these suits dismissed and are unsuccessful, the attorney anticipates a swift settlement. “No one wants to go litigate any of the Epstein-related cases.”

Eric Faddis, a litigator and founder of the Colorado law firm his firm and ex-government lawyer, said companies can be liable. In this situation, “if the institutions bear fault is going to depend, in part, on their level of awareness, if they were informed of claimed misconduct or criminal wrongdoing”, and in some way provided assistance 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 trafficking operation. The banks would probably not be aware of the particulars of allegations,” the lawyer said. While the financier’s prior legal case was known, “there’s no law against for a bank to have a customer who’s an unsavory person”.

“However, it is unlawful for a financial firm to in any way be complicit in the criminal activity of a client, but those two issues are distinct, and so I think that it’s going to be a tough lawsuit against the banks.”

Potential Benefits for Survivors

Nevertheless, key elements of the legal proceedings could help 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 sort of walls put up at every turn for individuals seeking this information, when there’s a lawsuit, there’s a evidence-gathering phase, and that discovery process often requires release of materials that was not formerly available.”

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 future would-be victims who will be harmed from comparable criminal networks – if our financial institutions are not made responsible for the essential role each plays, either in providing the necessary infrastructure for the illegal operation or recognizing the financial component of these offenses and stopping it.

He added: “We have a far better chance of effecting meaningful change than lawmakers, because we understand the facts and background of the case and are not motivated by politics but rather by a sincere intention to make a real difference and to safeguard the survivors, who have already endured immense pain.

“Our handling of these issues without any partisan motives and thus cannot be deterred by obstructions, shielding influential figures, or the other shameful political maneuvering you and the rest of the world have had to observe recently.”

McCawley said in a declaration: “While legislators attempt to uncover how Jeffrey Epstein was able to conduct his criminal sex-trafficking enterprise for decades without detection, we are taking another important step forward toward justice for survivors.”

Institutional Reactions

When requested for a statement on the legal complaint, BNY said: “The allegations in the case are baseless, and we will vigorously defend against it.”

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