🔗 Share this article

Over many years, survivors of the late financier Jeffrey Epstein have sought justice. For a while, it seemed like they would achieve it.

Epstein’s former associate Ghislaine Maxwell, the financier’s one-time partner, was convicted of sex trafficking four years ago for her role in the deceased billionaire’s exploitation of teen girls – and sentenced 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 agreements to victims. Former President Trump even made releasing the documents related to the Epstein probe part of his election promises, and reiterated on his commitment to do so in recent months.

In the end, the administration’s Department of Justice did not make public these records, and his administration has become involved in reports about social ties between him and Epstein. Congressional promises to disclose documents have lagged, due to partisan maneuvering and delays from federal authorities.

But two new lawsuits could shed light on Epstein’s activities amid the deadlock – regardless of their result.

Lawsuits Target Major Banks

These lawsuits, submitted by an anonymous plaintiff against a major U.S. bank 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 a prominent law firm, and lawyer Brad Edwards of Edwards Henderson, who have consistently advocated for Epstein victims.

“Epstein committed these crimes by means of not only his own vast fortune and power, but through financial backing and monetary assistance from both private parties and organizations, including the bank,” the legal filing states. “Shockingly, the institution had a plethora of information regarding Epstein’s sex trafficking operation but opted for financial gain over protecting the victims.”

The Bank of America suit mirrors these claims, asserting the institution “deliberately supplied the monetary resources and the appearance of respectability for Epstein and his co-conspirators to fuel their international sex trafficking organization under the guise of non-criminal business activities”. The legal action also said Bank of America failed to file mandatory financial alerts.

Legal Experts Weigh In on Legal Hurdles

Longtime attorneys who commented on the situation said proving such a case would be challenging. But they also identified potential results which could provide solace to accusers or disclosure of long-sought information.

Attorney Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor who established West Coast Trial lawyers, said proof has to show that an bank’s conduct resulted in harm.

“In my view, the case faces significant obstacles – and obviously I am on the side of the survivors, and I want them to get explanations and legal redress and compensation,” Rahmani said. Certain allegations might be too tangential from a legal standpoint.

“The case hinges on proof,” he said. A attorney would need to prove cause and effect, which would mean “but for the defendant’s conduct, the injury wouldn’t have happened”. In this case, that would boil down to “absent the institution’s involvement, the survivor maybe wouldn’t have been trafficked”, the lawyer clarified.

A lawyer 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 standard. So any improper behavior there was, if there was any misconduct … the bank’s actions has to have been a key contributor in leading to the victim’s suffering.

“Through maintaining financial ties to Epstein, is that a substantial factor? It’s uncertain.”

Regardless of legal responsibility, such lawsuits could serve as a warning that associations with those accused of wrongdoing can have damaging implications for them.

“It’s a PR nightmare,” Rahmani noted. If the financial institutions try to get these cases dismissed and are unsuccessful, the attorney anticipates a quick resolution. “No party desires to pursue any of the legal matters tied to Epstein.”

Eric Faddis, a trial attorney and principal of the legal practice his firm and former prosecutor, said companies can be responsible. In this scenario, “whether the banks have liability is going to depend, in part, on their level of awareness, whether they had any knowledge of claimed misconduct or criminal wrongdoing”, and somehow provided assistance to Epstein.

“However, even in that case, I think it’s going to be hard to effectively connect the banks into some kind of sex-trafficking scheme. The institutions would likely not be privy to the details of allegations,” Faddis 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 unsavory person”.

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

Potential Benefits for Survivors

That said, key elements of the legal proceedings could assist those affected by Epstein.

“The lawsuits have the potential to reveal more information about the ongoing Epstein saga,” the attorney said. “Despite the fact that there have been sort of walls put up at every turn for folks pursuing this information, when there’s a lawsuit, there’s a discovery process, and that legal procedure often requires release of materials that was not formerly available.”

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

“The lawsuits are necessary for complete justice for the survivors of Jeffrey Epstein – as well as for potential targets who will suffer from similar trafficking organizations – if our banks are not made responsible for the crucial part each performs, either in providing the necessary infrastructure for the criminal enterprise or recognizing the financial component of these crimes and putting an end to it.

Edwards continued: “Our prospects are significantly higher of effecting meaningful change than Congress, because we understand the details and history of the case and are not driven by politics but rather by a genuine desire to create substantial impact and to protect the victims, who have already endured immense pain.

“Our handling of these issues 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 watch unfold recently.”

Attorney Sigrid McCawley said in a statement: “As Congress works toward unraveling how the financier was able to conduct his illegal trafficking operation for decades without being caught, we are taking a further significant action forward toward justice for survivors.”

Institutional Reactions

Asked for comment on the lawsuit, the Bank of New York Mellon said: “The claims in the lawsuit are meritless, and we will strongly contest against it.”

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