🔗 Share this article

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

Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s ex-girlfriend, was found guilty of sex trafficking four years ago for her involvement in the late financier’s sexual abuse of teen girls – and given to two decades behind bars.

Meanwhile, financial firms that had done business with Epstein, although not admitting wrongdoing, agreed to pay hundreds of millions in settlements to victims. Former President Trump even made releasing the Epstein investigative files part of his election promises, and doubled down 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 reports about personal connections between him and Epstein. Assurances from lawmakers to release files have lagged, due to political jockeying and justice department foot-dragging.

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

Lawsuits Aim at Major Banks

These lawsuits, filed by an anonymous plaintiff against a major U.S. bank and the BNY Mellon, claim that these financial powerhouses illicitly enabled Epstein’s sex trafficking. The cases are helmed by attorney Sigrid McCawley, of a prominent law firm, and lawyer Brad Edwards of Edwards Henderson, who have consistently advocated for survivors of Epstein’s abuse.

“The financier carried out these offenses 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 BNY,” the legal filing claims. “Egregiously, BNY 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, asserting the institution “deliberately supplied the monetary resources and the veneer of institutional legitimacy for Epstein and his accomplices to support their global trafficking enterprise under the pretext of non-criminal business activities”. The legal action also said the bank failed to file suspicious activity reports.

Attorneys Weigh In on Legal Hurdles

Experienced lawyers who spoke to the matter said establishing liability would be challenging. But they also identified possible outcomes which could offer comfort to accusers 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 clearly I am on the side of the victims, and I want them to get answers and criminal justice and financial recovery,” Rahmani said. Certain allegations 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 injury wouldn’t have occurred”. In this case, that would boil down to “absent the institution’s involvement, the victim maybe wouldn’t have been exploited”, Rahmani explained.

An attorney would also have to go further than a basic causation test. “Is not just ‘but for’ causation. It also has to be a substantial factor: that is the legal test. So whatever misconduct there was, if there was any wrongdoing … the bank’s actions has to have been a key contributor in leading to the plaintiff harm.

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

Regardless of legal responsibility, such lawsuits could serve as a warning that associations with those involved in alleged crimes can have negative consequences for them.

“It represents a reputational disaster,” he said. If the financial institutions try to get these suits dismissed and fail, the attorney anticipates a swift settlement. “No one wants to go litigate any of the Epstein-related cases.”

Attorney Eric Faddis, a trial attorney and founder of the legal practice his firm and ex-government lawyer, said companies can be responsible. In this scenario, “if the institutions bear fault is going to hinge, in part, on their level of awareness, if they were informed of alleged abuse or criminal wrongdoing”, and in some way provided assistance to Epstein.

“But even then, I think it’s going to be difficult to sort of loop the financial entities into some kind of trafficking operation. The banks would likely not be aware of the details of claims,” Faddis said. While Epstein’s Florida conviction was public, “it’s not illegal for a bank to have a client who’s an unsavory person”.

“It is illegal for a financial firm to somehow be complicit in the criminal activity of a client, but those two issues are very different, and so I think that it’s going to be a difficult case against the banks.”

Potential Benefits for Victims

That said, key elements of the legal proceedings could help Epstein survivors.

“The lawsuits have the potential to reveal more information about the continuing Epstein story,” Faddis said. “Even though there have been obstacles erected at every turn for folks seeking this data, when there’s a lawsuit, there’s a evidence-gathering phase, and that legal procedure often mandates release of materials that was not previously public.”

Attorney Brad Edwards said in a comment that the lawsuits could have a preventive impact and accomplish what legislators have been unable to do.

“Legal actions are essential for full accountability for the victims of Jeffrey Epstein – as well as for potential targets who will be harmed from comparable criminal networks – if our banks are not made responsible for the crucial part each plays, either in providing the required framework for the illegal operation or recognizing the monetary aspect of these offenses and putting an end to it.

Edwards continued: “We have a far better chance of making a real difference than Congress, because we understand the details and history of the matter and are not motivated by partisan interests but rather by a sincere intention to create substantial impact and to protect the victims, who have already suffered tremendously.

“We approach these matters without any partisan motives 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 Jeffrey Epstein was able to conduct his illegal trafficking operation for decades without being caught, we are taking a further significant action forward toward justice for victims.”

Bank Responses

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

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