🔗 Share this article

Over many years, victims of Jeffrey Epstein have sought accountability. At one point, it seemed like they would achieve it.

Epstein’s former associate Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s ex-girlfriend, was found guilty of human trafficking four years ago for her role in the deceased billionaire’s exploitation of teen girls – and sentenced to 20 years imprisonment.

At the same time, financial firms that had done business with Epstein, while not admitting wrongdoing, agreed to pay substantial sums in agreements to survivors. Donald 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 release these files, and his administration has become involved in reports about personal connections between him and Epstein. Congressional promises to disclose documents have stalled, due to political jockeying and delays from federal authorities.

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

Lawsuits Aim at Leading Financial Institutions

These lawsuits, submitted by an unnamed accuser against Bank of America and the Bank of New York Mellon (BNY), claim that these banking giants unlawfully facilitated Epstein’s trafficking ring. The cases are helmed by attorney Sigrid McCawley, of a prominent law firm, and 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 vast fortune and power, but through access to funding and monetary assistance from both individuals and organizations, including the bank,” one lawsuit states. “Egregiously, the institution had a plethora of information regarding Epstein’s sex trafficking operation but opted for financial gain over safeguarding those harmed.”

The complaint against Bank of America echoes these allegations, declaring the institution “deliberately supplied the monetary resources and the appearance of respectability for Epstein and his accomplices to support their international sex trafficking organization under the pretext of legal commercial dealings”. The suit 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 establishing liability would be difficult. But they also noted potential results which could provide solace to accusers or release of long-sought information.

Attorney Neama Rahmani, a ex-government lawyer who founded West Coast Trial lawyers, said evidence 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 explanations and criminal justice and compensation,” the attorney said. Some claims might be too tangential from a legal standpoint.

“It all comes down to evidence,” Rahmani said. A attorney would need to prove causation, which would mean “but for the defendant’s conduct, the injury wouldn’t have occurred”. In this case, that would translate to “but for the bank’s conduct, the victim maybe wouldn’t have been trafficked”, Rahmani explained.

A lawyer would also have to go further than a “but for” measure. “It’s not solely about indirect cause. It also has to be a significant element: that is the legal test. So whatever misconduct there was, if there was any misconduct … the bank’s actions has to have been a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff harm.

“By engaging in a business relationship with Epstein, is that a substantial factor? I don’t know.”

Liability aside, such lawsuits could serve as a warning that relationships with those involved in alleged crimes can have negative consequences for them.

“It’s a PR nightmare,” he said. If the banks try to get these cases dismissed and are unsuccessful, Rahmani expects a swift settlement. “No party desires to pursue any of the legal matters tied to Epstein.”

Eric Faddis, a litigator and founder of the legal practice Varner Faddis and former prosecutor, said companies can be responsible. In this scenario, “whether the banks have liability is going to depend, in part, on what the banks knew, whether they had any knowledge of claimed misconduct or criminal wrongdoing”, and somehow offered support to Epstein.

“But even then, I think it’s going to be difficult to effectively connect the financial entities into some kind of sex-trafficking scheme. The institutions would likely not be privy to the details of allegations,” Faddis said. While Epstein’s Florida conviction was known, “there’s no law against for a financial institution to have a client who’s an disreputable individual”.

“It is illegal for a financial firm to in any way be involved in the criminal activity of a customer, but these aspects are very different, and so I think that it’s going to be a difficult case against the institutions.”

Potential Benefits for Survivors

Nevertheless, important aspects of the litigation could assist those affected by Epstein.

“These cases may uncover additional details about the ongoing Epstein saga,” Faddis said. “Even though there have been sort of walls put up at every turn for folks seeking this data, when there’s a legal action, there’s a discovery process, and that legal procedure often mandates disclosure of materials that was not previously public.”

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

“Legal actions are essential for full accountability for the victims of Jeffrey Epstein – as well as for future would-be victims who will be harmed from similar trafficking organizations – if our financial institutions are not held accountable for the essential role each performs, either in providing the necessary infrastructure for the illegal operation or recognizing the monetary aspect of these offenses and stopping it.

Edwards continued: “Our prospects are significantly higher of effecting meaningful change than Congress, because we understand the facts and background of the matter and are not driven by partisan interests but rather by a genuine desire to make a real difference and to safeguard the victims, who have already endured immense pain.

“We approach these matters without any partisan motives and thus will not be swayed by obstructions, shielding influential figures, or the other embarrassing partisan gamesmanship you and the rest of the world have had to watch unfold recently.”

Attorney Sigrid McCawley said in a statement: “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 justice for victims.”

Bank Responses

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

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