🔗 Share this article

For years, victims of the late financier Jeffrey Epstein have demanded accountability. At one point, it seemed like they would get it.

Epstein’s former associate Ghislaine Maxwell, the financier’s one-time partner, was convicted of sex trafficking in a 2021 trial for her role in the late financier’s exploitation of underage females – and sentenced to 20 years imprisonment.

At the same time, financial firms that had done business with Epstein, while not accepting fault, agreed to pay substantial sums in agreements to victims. Former President Trump even made releasing the documents related to the Epstein probe part of his election promises, and doubled down on his promise to do so early this year.

Ultimately, the administration’s Department of Justice did not make public these files, and his administration has become involved in reports about social ties between him and Epstein. Assurances from lawmakers to release files have stalled, due to partisan maneuvering and delays from federal authorities.

However recent legal actions could provide clarity on Epstein’s activities amid the stalemate – regardless of their result.

Legal Actions Target Major Banks

These lawsuits, submitted by an unnamed accuser against Bank of America and the Bank of New York Mellon (BNY), allege that these banking giants unlawfully facilitated Epstein’s trafficking ring. The cases are led by attorney Sigrid McCawley, of Boies Schiller Flexner, and 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 financial backing and monetary assistance from both individuals and organizations, including BNY,” one lawsuit claims. “Egregiously, the institution had a plethora of information regarding Epstein’s trafficking network 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 co-conspirators 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

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

Neama Rahmani, a ex-government lawyer 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 clearly I am on the side of the survivors, and I want them to get explanations and criminal justice and compensation,” the attorney said. Some claims might be too tangential from a legal standpoint.

“The case hinges on proof,” 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 case, that would boil down to “absent the institution’s involvement, the survivor maybe wouldn’t have been trafficked”, Rahmani explained.

An attorney would also have to go beyond a “but for” measure. “Is not just ‘but for’ causation. It also has to be a significant element: that is the legal test. So whatever misconduct there was, if there was any wrongdoing … the defendant’s misconduct has to have been a key contributor in leading to the victim’s suffering.

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

Liability aside, such lawsuits could put institutions on notice 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 thrown out and are unsuccessful, the attorney anticipates a quick resolution. “No party desires to pursue any of the legal matters tied to Epstein.”

Attorney Eric Faddis, a litigator and founder of the legal practice his firm and ex-government lawyer, said corporations can be liable. In this scenario, “if the institutions bear fault is going to depend, in part, on what the banks knew, whether they had any knowledge of claimed misconduct or illegal acts”, and somehow offered support to Epstein.

“However, even in that case, I think it’s going to be difficult to sort of loop the banks into some kind of trafficking operation. The banks would probably not be privy to the details of claims,” Faddis said. While Epstein’s Florida conviction was public, “there’s no law against for a financial institution to have a client who’s an disreputable individual”.

“However, it is unlawful for a financial firm to in any way be complicit in the illegal actions of a client, but these aspects are very different, and so I think that it’s going to be a difficult case against the banks.”

Potential Benefits for Survivors

Nevertheless, important aspects of the legal proceedings could help Epstein survivors.

“These cases may uncover additional details about the continuing Epstein story,” the attorney said. “Despite the fact that there have been sort of walls put up at every turn for individuals seeking this information, when there’s a lawsuit, there’s a evidence-gathering phase, and that discovery process often mandates disclosure of materials that was not previously public.”

Edwards said in a comment that the suits could have a deterrent effect and accomplish what lawmakers have been unable to do.

“Legal actions are essential for full accountability for the victims of the financier – as well as for potential targets who will suffer from similar trafficking organizations – if our financial institutions are not made responsible for the essential role each plays, either in supplying the necessary infrastructure for the criminal enterprise or recognizing the financial component of these crimes and putting an end to it.

Edwards continued: “We have a far better chance of making a real difference than lawmakers, because we know the facts and history of the case and are not motivated by politics but rather by a sincere intention to create substantial impact and to protect the victims, who have already suffered tremendously.

“Our handling of these issues without any partisan motives 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 observe recently.”

Attorney Sigrid McCawley said in a statement: “As Congress works toward unraveling how Jeffrey Epstein was able to orchestrate his criminal sex-trafficking enterprise for decades without being caught, we are taking a further significant action forward toward legal resolution for survivors.”

Bank Responses

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

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