🔗 Share this article

Over many years, survivors of Jeffrey Epstein have sought accountability. At one point, it appeared like they would get it.

Epstein’s former associate Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s ex-girlfriend, was found guilty of human trafficking in a 2021 trial for her role in the deceased billionaire’s sexual abuse of underage females – and given to two decades behind bars.

Meanwhile, banks that had done business with Epstein, while not admitting wrongdoing, paid hundreds of millions in settlements to victims. Former President Trump even made releasing the documents related to the Epstein probe part of his election promises, and doubled down on his promise to do so in recent months.

In the end, the administration’s Department of Justice did not make public these records, and his government has become involved in reports about social ties between him and Epstein. Assurances from lawmakers to disclose documents have stalled, due to political jockeying and delays from federal authorities.

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

Lawsuits Aim at Leading Financial Institutions

These lawsuits, filed by an unnamed accuser against Bank of America and the Bank of New York Mellon (BNY), allege that these financial powerhouses unlawfully facilitated Epstein’s sex trafficking. The cases are led by attorney Sigrid McCawley, of Boies Schiller Flexner, and lawyer Brad Edwards of Edwards Henderson, who have long represented Epstein victims.

“The financier carried out these offenses by means of not only his own vast fortune and power, but through financial backing and financial support from both individuals and organizations, including the bank,” the legal filing states. “Shockingly, the institution had a plethora of information regarding Epstein’s trafficking network but opted for financial gain over safeguarding those harmed.”

The Bank of America suit mirrors these claims, 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 guise of legal commercial dealings”. The legal action also said the bank failed to file mandatory financial alerts.

Legal Experts Offer Perspectives on Case Challenges

Longtime attorneys who spoke to the situation said establishing liability would be difficult. But they also identified potential results which could provide solace to plaintiffs or release of previously hidden details.

Attorney 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 obviously I am on the side of the victims, and I want them to get answers and legal redress and financial recovery,” Rahmani said. Some claims might be not directly related from a juridical perspective.

“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 “absent the institution’s involvement, the victim maybe wouldn’t have been exploited”, Rahmani explained.

A lawyer would also have to go beyond a basic causation test. “Is not just ‘but for’ causation. It also has to be a significant element: 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 plaintiff harm.

“Through maintaining financial ties to Epstein, is that a decisive element? 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 financial institutions try to get these cases thrown out and fail, the attorney expects a swift settlement. “No party desires to pursue any of the legal matters tied to Epstein.”

Attorney Eric Faddis, a litigator and principal of the Colorado law firm his firm and ex-government lawyer, said corporations can be responsible. In this situation, “whether the banks have liability is going to hinge, in part, on their level of awareness, 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 effectively connect the banks into some kind of trafficking operation. The banks would probably 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 customer who’s an disreputable individual”.

“However, it is unlawful for a financial firm to somehow be complicit in the criminal activity of a client, but these aspects are very different, and so I think that it’s going to be a tough lawsuit against the institutions.”

Potential Benefits for Victims

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

“These cases may uncover additional details about the ongoing Epstein saga,” the attorney said. “Even though there have been sort of walls put up at every turn for individuals seeking this data, when there’s a lawsuit, there’s a discovery process, and that discovery process often mandates release of materials that was not formerly available.”

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

“Legal actions are essential for full accountability for the victims of the financier – as well as for potential targets who will suffer from comparable criminal networks – if our banks are not held accountable for the essential role each performs, either in supplying the required framework for the illegal operation or recognizing the monetary aspect of these crimes and stopping it.

Edwards continued: “We have a far better chance of making a real difference than lawmakers, because we understand the details and history of the case and are not driven by politics but rather by a genuine desire to make a real difference and to safeguard the survivors, who have already suffered tremendously.

“We approach these matters without any partisan motives and thus will not be swayed 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 statement: “As Congress works toward unraveling how Jeffrey Epstein was able to orchestrate his illegal trafficking operation for decades without being caught, we are taking another important step forward toward legal resolution for victims.”

Institutional Reactions

When requested for a statement on the lawsuit, BNY said: “The allegations in the case are baseless, and we will strongly contest against it.”

The bank’s response similarly remarked: “We intend to firmly protect our interests in this matter.”