🔗 Share this article

For years, victims of Jeffrey Epstein have demanded accountability. At one point, it seemed 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 deceased billionaire’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, agreed to pay substantial sums in agreements to survivors. Donald Trump even made disclosing the documents related to the Epstein probe part of his campaign platform, and reiterated on his promise to do so in recent months.

In the end, Trump’s justice department did not make public these records, and his government has become embroiled in reports about personal connections between him and Epstein. Congressional promises to release files have stalled, due to political jockeying and justice department foot-dragging.

However recent legal actions could shed light on Epstein’s activities amid the deadlock – irrespective of their result.

Legal Actions Aim at Leading Financial Institutions

The legal complaints, filed by an unnamed accuser against a major U.S. bank and the Bank of New York Mellon (BNY), claim that these financial powerhouses illicitly enabled Epstein’s trafficking ring. The cases are led by Sigrid S McCawley, of a prominent law firm, and lawyer Brad Edwards of his legal practice, who have consistently advocated for 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 monetary assistance from both individuals and institutions, including the bank,” one lawsuit claims. “Egregiously, the institution had a abundance of knowledge regarding Epstein’s sex trafficking operation but chose profit over safeguarding those harmed.”

The complaint against Bank of America echoes these allegations, declaring the institution “knowingly provided the monetary resources and the veneer of institutional legitimacy for Epstein and his accomplices to support their international sex trafficking organization under the guise of non-criminal business activities”. The suit also said Bank of America neglected to file mandatory financial alerts.

Attorneys Offer Perspectives on Case Challenges

Experienced lawyers who commented on the matter said establishing liability would be challenging. But they also identified potential results which could offer comfort to accusers 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 led to 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 answers and legal redress and financial recovery,” Rahmani said. Some claims might be not directly related from a legal standpoint.

“The case hinges on proof,” Rahmani said. A attorney would need to prove causation, which would mean “if not for the bank’s actions, the harm wouldn’t have happened”. In this instance, that would boil down to “but for the bank’s conduct, the victim maybe wouldn’t have been trafficked”, the lawyer clarified.

A lawyer would also have to go further than a basic causation test. “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 key contributor in causing the victim’s suffering.

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

Regardless of legal responsibility, suits like this 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 expects a quick resolution. “No one wants to go litigate any of the Epstein-related cases.”

Attorney Eric Faddis, a trial attorney and founder of the Colorado law firm Varner Faddis and former prosecutor, said corporations can be responsible. In this scenario, “whether the banks have liability is going to depend, in part, on what the banks knew, if they were informed of claimed misconduct or criminal wrongdoing”, and in some way offered support to Epstein.

“But even then, I think it’s going to be hard to sort of loop the banks into some kind of trafficking operation. The institutions would likely not be aware of the details 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 client who’s an unsavory person”.

“However, it is unlawful for a financial firm to somehow be complicit in the illegal actions of a client, but those two issues are distinct, and so I think that it’s going to be a difficult case against the institutions.”

Potential Benefits for Victims

Nevertheless, important aspects 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 legal action, there’s a discovery process, and that legal procedure often mandates release of materials that was not previously public.”

Attorney Brad Edwards said in a statement 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 survivors of the financier – as well as for future would-be victims who will suffer from similar trafficking organizations – if our banks are not made responsible for the essential role each plays, either in supplying the required framework for the criminal enterprise or identifying the monetary aspect of these crimes and stopping it.

He added: “We have a far better chance of making a real difference than lawmakers, because we know the details and background of the matter and are not motivated by politics but rather by a sincere intention to make a real difference and to protect the victims, who have already suffered tremendously.

“We approach these matters without any political agenda and thus cannot be deterred by obstructions, shielding influential figures, 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 the financier was able to conduct his criminal sex-trafficking enterprise for many years without being caught, we are taking a further significant action forward toward legal resolution for survivors.”

Bank Responses

Asked for comment on the lawsuit, BNY 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 matter.”