🔗 Share this article

For years, victims of Jeffrey Epstein have demanded justice. For a while, it seemed like they would get it.

Epstein’s former associate Ghislaine Maxwell, the financier’s one-time partner, was convicted of human trafficking in a 2021 trial for her role in the late financier’s exploitation of teen girls – and sentenced to two decades behind bars.

At the same time, banks that had done business with Epstein, although not admitting wrongdoing, agreed to pay hundreds of millions in settlements to victims. Donald Trump even made releasing the documents related to the Epstein probe part of his campaign platform, and reiterated on his commitment to do so in recent months.

In the end, Trump’s justice department did not release these records, and his administration has become embroiled in allegations 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 shed light on Epstein’s activities amid the deadlock – regardless of their result.

Legal Actions 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 illicitly enabled Epstein’s trafficking ring. The suits are led by Sigrid S McCawley, of Boies Schiller Flexner, and lawyer Brad Edwards of his legal practice, 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 access to funding and financial support from both private parties and institutions, including the bank,” one lawsuit states. “Egregiously, the institution had a abundance of knowledge regarding Epstein’s trafficking network but chose profit over safeguarding those harmed.”

The complaint against Bank of America echoes these allegations, declaring the institution “deliberately supplied the monetary resources and the veneer of institutional legitimacy for Epstein and his co-conspirators to support their global trafficking enterprise under the pretext of non-criminal business activities”. The legal action also said Bank of America neglected to file suspicious activity reports.

Attorneys Weigh In on Legal Hurdles

Longtime attorneys who commented on the matter said establishing liability would be challenging. But they also noted possible outcomes which could provide solace to plaintiffs or disclosure of previously hidden details.

Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor who founded a legal firm, 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 clearly I am on the side of the victims, and I want them to get answers and criminal justice and financial recovery,” the attorney said. Some claims might be too tangential from a legal standpoint.

“It all comes down to evidence,” he said. A attorney would need to prove causation, which would mean “but for the defendant’s conduct, the harm wouldn’t have occurred”. In this instance, that would boil down to “but for the bank’s conduct, the survivor maybe wouldn’t have been trafficked”, the lawyer explained.

An attorney would also have to go further than a “but for” measure. “Is not just ‘but for’ causation. It also has to be a substantial factor: that is the standard. So any improper behavior there was, if there was any wrongdoing … the bank’s actions has to have been a key contributor in leading to 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 put institutions on notice that relationships with those involved in alleged crimes can have negative consequences for them.

“It represents a reputational disaster,” Rahmani noted. If the financial institutions try to get these cases thrown out and are unsuccessful, Rahmani expects a quick resolution. “No party desires to pursue any of the Epstein-related cases.”

Attorney Eric Faddis, a litigator and founder of the Colorado law firm 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 their level of awareness, whether they had any knowledge of alleged abuse or illegal acts”, and somehow provided assistance to Epstein.

“But even then, I think it’s going to be difficult to sort of loop the banks into some kind of trafficking operation. The banks would likely not be aware of the particulars of claims,” the lawyer said. While the financier’s prior legal case was public, “there’s no law against for a financial institution to have a client who’s an disreputable individual”.

“It is illegal for a bank to somehow 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 institutions.”

Potential Benefits for Victims

Nevertheless, key elements of the litigation could help Epstein survivors.

“These cases may uncover additional details about the ongoing Epstein saga,” Faddis said. “Despite the fact that there have been sort of walls put up at every turn for individuals pursuing this data, when there’s a lawsuit, there’s a evidence-gathering phase, and that discovery process often requires disclosure of materials that was not formerly available.”

Attorney Brad Edwards said in a statement 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 survivors of the financier – as well as for future would-be victims who will suffer from similar trafficking organizations – if our financial institutions are not made responsible for the essential role each performs, either in supplying the required framework for the criminal enterprise or identifying the financial component of these offenses and putting an end to it.

He added: “We have a far better chance of effecting meaningful change than Congress, because we know 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 victims, who have already suffered tremendously.

“We approach these matters without any political agenda and thus cannot be deterred by shutdowns, shielding influential figures, or the other embarrassing partisan gamesmanship you and the rest of the world have had to watch unfold recently.”

McCawley said in a statement: “As Congress works toward unraveling how Jeffrey Epstein was able to orchestrate his criminal sex-trafficking enterprise for many years without being caught, we are taking another important step forward toward legal resolution for survivors.”

Bank Responses

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

Bank of America’s statement likewise stated: “We intend to firmly protect our interests in this case.”