🔗 Share this article

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

Epstein’s former associate Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s ex-girlfriend, was found guilty of sex trafficking four years ago for her role in the deceased billionaire’s sexual abuse of underage females – and sentenced to 20 years imprisonment.

At the same time, banks that had worked with Epstein, although not admitting wrongdoing, paid substantial sums in agreements to survivors. Former President Trump even made disclosing the Epstein investigative files part of his election promises, and doubled down on his commitment to do so in recent months.

Ultimately, Trump’s justice department did not make public these files, and his administration has become involved in allegations about social ties between him and Epstein. Assurances from lawmakers to disclose documents have stalled, due to partisan maneuvering and delays from federal authorities.

However two new lawsuits could provide clarity on Epstein’s activities amid the stalemate – regardless of their result.

Legal Actions Aim at Major Banks

The legal complaints, submitted by an anonymous plaintiff 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 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 financial backing and monetary assistance from both individuals and institutions, including the bank,” the legal filing states. “Egregiously, BNY had a plethora of information regarding Epstein’s sex trafficking operation but chose profit over protecting the victims.”

The Bank of America suit echoes these allegations, declaring the institution “deliberately supplied the financial support and the veneer of institutional legitimacy for Epstein and his accomplices to support their international sex trafficking organization under the pretext of non-criminal business activities”. The suit also said the bank neglected to file suspicious activity reports.

Attorneys Weigh In on Legal Hurdles

Longtime attorneys who spoke to the matter said proving such a case would be difficult. But they also identified possible outcomes 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 institution’s actions led to 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 answers and legal redress and financial recovery,” 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 “if not for the bank’s actions, the harm wouldn’t have happened”. In this instance, that would translate to “absent the institution’s involvement, the victim maybe wouldn’t have been trafficked”, Rahmani explained.

A lawyer would also have to go further than a “but for” measure. “Is not just ‘but for’ causation. It also has to be a significant element: that is the standard. So any improper behavior there was, if there was any wrongdoing … the defendant’s misconduct has to have been a substantial factor in causing the victim’s suffering.

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

Liability aside, suits like this could serve as a warning that associations with those involved in alleged crimes can have damaging implications for them.

“It represents a reputational disaster,” Rahmani noted. If the banks try to get these suits dismissed and fail, Rahmani 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 Varner Faddis and former prosecutor, said companies can be responsible. In this scenario, “whether the banks have liability is going to depend, in part, on what the banks knew, whether they had any knowledge of claimed misconduct or criminal wrongdoing”, and somehow offered support to Epstein.

“But even then, I think it’s going to be difficult to effectively connect the financial entities 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 known, “there’s no law against for a financial institution to have a customer who’s an unsavory person”.

“It is illegal for a bank 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 tough lawsuit against the institutions.”

Possible Advantages for Survivors

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

“The lawsuits have the potential to reveal more information about the continuing Epstein story,” the attorney 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 discovery process often requires disclosure of information that was not previously public.”

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

“The lawsuits are necessary for complete justice for the survivors of the financier – as well as for future would-be victims who will suffer from comparable criminal networks – if our banks are not made responsible for the crucial part each plays, either in providing the necessary infrastructure for the criminal enterprise or recognizing the financial component of these crimes and stopping it.

He added: “We have a far better chance of effecting meaningful change than lawmakers, because we know 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 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 shameful political maneuvering you and the rest of the world have had to watch unfold recently.”

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

Bank Responses

When requested for a statement 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 likewise stated: “We will vigorously defend ourselves in this matter.”