🔗 Share this article

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

Ghislaine Maxwell, the financier’s one-time partner, was found guilty of sex trafficking four years ago for her role in the late financier’s sexual abuse of underage females – and sentenced to two decades behind bars.

At the same time, financial firms that had worked with Epstein, although not accepting fault, paid hundreds of millions in agreements to victims. Donald Trump even made releasing the Epstein investigative files part of his campaign platform, and reiterated on his promise to do so in recent months.

Ultimately, the administration’s Department of Justice did not release these files, and his government has become embroiled in reports about personal connections between him and Epstein. Assurances from lawmakers to disclose documents have stalled, due to political jockeying and delays from federal authorities.

However two new lawsuits could shed light on Epstein’s activities amid the stalemate – irrespective of their outcome.

Lawsuits Aim at Leading Financial Institutions

The legal complaints, filed by an anonymous plaintiff against a major U.S. bank and the BNY Mellon, claim that these financial powerhouses unlawfully facilitated Epstein’s trafficking ring. The suits are led by attorney Sigrid McCawley, of Boies Schiller Flexner, and Brad Edwards of Edwards Henderson, who have long represented 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 individuals and organizations, including the bank,” one lawsuit claims. “Shockingly, BNY had a abundance of knowledge regarding Epstein’s trafficking network 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 veneer of institutional legitimacy for Epstein and his accomplices to fuel their global trafficking enterprise under the guise of legal commercial dealings”. The suit also said the bank failed to file suspicious activity reports.

Attorneys Weigh In on Legal Hurdles

Experienced lawyers who spoke to the situation said establishing liability would be difficult. But they also identified possible outcomes which could offer comfort to plaintiffs or release of long-sought information.

Attorney Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor who established 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 obviously I am on the side of the victims, and I want them to get explanations and legal redress and compensation,” the attorney said. Certain allegations might be too tangential from a legal standpoint.

“It all comes down to evidence,” he said. A lawyer would need to prove cause and effect, which would mean “but for the defendant’s conduct, the harm wouldn’t have occurred”. In this case, that would boil down to “but for the bank’s conduct, the victim maybe wouldn’t have been exploited”, the lawyer clarified.

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

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

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’s a PR nightmare,” Rahmani noted. If the banks try to get these suits thrown out and fail, the attorney expects a quick resolution. “No party desires to pursue any of the Epstein-related cases.”

Attorney Eric Faddis, a litigator and principal of the legal practice Varner Faddis and ex-government lawyer, said corporations can be liable. In this situation, “if the institutions bear fault is going to depend, in part, on what the banks knew, if they were informed of claimed misconduct or illegal acts”, and somehow offered support to Epstein.

“But even then, I think it’s going to be hard to effectively connect the financial entities into some kind of sex-trafficking scheme. The banks would likely not be aware of the particulars of claims,” the lawyer said. While Epstein’s Florida conviction was known, “there’s no law against for a financial institution to have a customer who’s an disreputable individual”.

“However, it is unlawful for a bank to somehow be involved in the illegal actions 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 Survivors

That said, important aspects of the litigation could help those affected by Epstein.

“The lawsuits have the potential to reveal more information about the ongoing Epstein saga,” Faddis said. “Even though there have been sort of walls put up at every turn for individuals pursuing this data, when there’s a legal action, there’s a discovery process, 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 accomplish what legislators 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 suffer from similar trafficking organizations – if our financial institutions are not made responsible for the crucial part each plays, either in supplying the necessary infrastructure for the criminal enterprise or identifying the monetary aspect of these crimes and putting an end to it.

Edwards continued: “Our prospects are significantly higher of making a real difference than lawmakers, because we know the details and background of the matter and are not motivated by politics but rather by a genuine desire to create substantial impact and to protect the survivors, who have already endured immense pain.

“Our handling of these issues without any partisan motives and thus will not be swayed by obstructions, protecting wealthy politically connected individuals, or the other embarrassing partisan gamesmanship you and the rest of the world have had to observe recently.”

Attorney Sigrid McCawley said in a declaration: “As Congress works toward unraveling how Jeffrey Epstein was able to conduct his illegal trafficking operation for many years without detection, we are taking a further significant action forward toward legal resolution for survivors.”

Bank Responses

Asked for comment 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 likewise stated: “We will vigorously defend ourselves in this matter.”