🔗 Share this article

For years, victims of Jeffrey Epstein have sought justice. At one point, it appeared like they would get it.

Epstein’s former associate Ghislaine Maxwell, the financier’s one-time partner, was found guilty of human trafficking four years ago for her involvement in the late financier’s exploitation of teen girls – and sentenced to two decades behind bars.

Meanwhile, financial firms that had worked with Epstein, although not admitting wrongdoing, agreed to pay substantial sums 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 early this year.

Ultimately, Trump’s justice department did not make public these records, and his administration has become involved in reports about personal connections between him and Epstein. Congressional promises to disclose documents have stalled, due to partisan maneuvering and justice department foot-dragging.

However two new lawsuits could provide clarity on Epstein’s operations amid the deadlock – irrespective of their outcome.

Lawsuits Aim at Leading Financial Institutions

The legal complaints, filed by an unnamed accuser against a major U.S. bank and the BNY Mellon, claim that these financial powerhouses illicitly enabled Epstein’s trafficking ring. The suits are led by attorney Sigrid McCawley, of Boies Schiller Flexner, and lawyer Brad Edwards of his legal practice, who have long represented survivors of Epstein’s abuse.

“Epstein committed these crimes by means of not only his own extraordinary wealth and power, but through financial backing and monetary assistance from both individuals and organizations, including BNY,” the legal filing claims. “Shockingly, the institution had a abundance of knowledge regarding Epstein’s sex trafficking operation but opted for financial gain over protecting the victims.”

The complaint against Bank of America echoes these allegations, declaring the institution “knowingly provided the monetary resources and the appearance of respectability for Epstein and his accomplices to support their international sex trafficking organization under the guise of legal commercial dealings”. The legal action also said the bank neglected to file mandatory financial alerts.

Attorneys Weigh In on Legal Hurdles

Experienced lawyers who spoke to the situation said proving such a case would be difficult. But they also noted potential results which could provide solace to accusers or release of long-sought information.

Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor who founded West Coast Trial lawyers, said evidence has to show that an bank’s conduct 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 survivors, and I want them to get explanations and legal redress and financial recovery,” the attorney said. Certain allegations might be not directly related from a legal standpoint.

“The case hinges on proof,” he said. A lawyer would need to prove causation, which would mean “but for the defendant’s conduct, the harm wouldn’t have occurred”. In this case, that would translate to “but for the bank’s conduct, the survivor maybe wouldn’t have been trafficked”, Rahmani clarified.

A lawyer would also have to go beyond 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 defendant’s misconduct 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 associations with those accused of wrongdoing can have damaging implications for them.

“It represents a reputational disaster,” Rahmani noted. If the financial institutions try to get these cases dismissed and fail, the attorney expects a quick resolution. “No one wants to go litigate any of the Epstein-related cases.”

Attorney Eric Faddis, a trial attorney and founder of the Colorado law firm his firm and ex-government lawyer, said companies can be liable. In this situation, “whether the banks have liability 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.

“However, even in that case, I think it’s going to be hard to sort of loop the banks into some kind of sex-trafficking scheme. The institutions would probably not be privy to the details of claims,” the lawyer 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”.

“However, it is unlawful for a bank to in any way be involved in the criminal activity of a client, but those two issues are distinct, and so I think that it’s going to be a difficult case against the banks.”

Potential Benefits for Survivors

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

“These cases may uncover additional details about the continuing Epstein story,” Faddis said. “Even though there have been obstacles erected at every turn for folks pursuing this information, when there’s a lawsuit, there’s a evidence-gathering phase, and that legal procedure often requires disclosure of information that was not formerly available.”

Edwards said in a statement that the suits could have a deterrent effect and achieve what lawmakers have failed to do.

“The lawsuits are necessary for complete justice for the survivors of Jeffrey Epstein – as well as for potential targets who will be harmed from similar trafficking organizations – if our financial institutions are not held accountable for the essential role each performs, either in supplying the required framework for the criminal enterprise or identifying the financial component of these crimes and putting an end to it.

He added: “Our prospects are significantly higher of effecting meaningful change than Congress, because we understand the details and background of the case and are not driven by partisan interests but rather by a genuine desire to create substantial impact and to safeguard the survivors, who have already endured immense pain.

“We approach these matters without any political agenda and thus cannot be deterred by obstructions, protecting wealthy politically connected individuals, or the other embarrassing partisan gamesmanship you and the rest of the world have had to watch unfold recently.”

McCawley said in a declaration: “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 a further significant action forward toward legal resolution for victims.”

Bank Responses

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

The bank’s response similarly remarked: “We will vigorously defend ourselves in this case.”