🔗 Share this article

For years, victims of the late financier Jeffrey Epstein have demanded justice. For a while, it seemed like they would get it.

Ghislaine Maxwell, the financier’s one-time partner, was found guilty of human trafficking four years ago for her involvement in the deceased billionaire’s exploitation of underage females – and given to two decades behind bars.

At the same time, financial firms that had worked with Epstein, although not accepting fault, agreed to pay substantial sums in settlements to victims. Former President Trump even made disclosing the documents related to the Epstein probe part of his campaign platform, and reiterated on his commitment to do so in recent months.

In the end, Trump’s justice department 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 partisan maneuvering and justice department foot-dragging.

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

Lawsuits Aim at Major Banks

The legal complaints, filed by an unnamed accuser against Bank of America and the BNY Mellon, allege that these banking giants illicitly enabled Epstein’s trafficking ring. The cases are helmed by Sigrid S McCawley, of a prominent law firm, and lawyer Brad Edwards of Edwards Henderson, who have long represented survivors of Epstein’s abuse.

“Epstein committed these crimes by means of not only his own vast fortune and influence, but through access to funding and monetary assistance from both individuals and organizations, including the bank,” the legal filing states. “Egregiously, the institution had a abundance of knowledge regarding Epstein’s sex trafficking operation but chose profit 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 accomplices to fuel their international sex trafficking organization under the pretext of non-criminal business activities”. The suit also said Bank of America neglected to file mandatory financial alerts.

Attorneys Offer Perspectives on Case Challenges

Longtime attorneys who commented on the matter said proving such a case would be challenging. But they also identified possible outcomes which could offer comfort to plaintiffs or disclosure of previously hidden details.

Neama Rahmani, a ex-government lawyer who established a legal firm, said evidence has to show that an bank’s conduct led to harm.

“I don’t think the lawsuit has much of a chance of success – and obviously I am on the side of the survivors, and I want them to get explanations and criminal justice and compensation,” Rahmani said. Certain allegations might be too tangential from a legal standpoint.

“It all comes down to evidence,” he said. A attorney would need to prove cause and effect, which would mean “if not for the bank’s actions, the injury wouldn’t have occurred”. In this instance, that would boil down to “but for the bank’s conduct, the victim maybe wouldn’t have been trafficked”, the lawyer clarified.

An attorney 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 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.

“By engaging in a business relationship with Epstein, is that a substantial factor? I don’t know.”

Liability aside, suits like this could put institutions on notice that relationships with those involved in alleged crimes can have damaging implications for them.

“It represents a reputational disaster,” Rahmani noted. If the financial institutions try to get these cases dismissed and are unsuccessful, Rahmani anticipates a swift settlement. “No one wants to go litigate any of the Epstein-related cases.”

Eric Faddis, a trial attorney and founder of the Colorado law firm his firm and ex-government lawyer, said corporations can be liable. In this situation, “if the institutions bear fault is going to hinge, in part, on their level of awareness, whether they had any knowledge of alleged abuse or illegal acts”, and in some way provided assistance to Epstein.

“However, even in that case, I think it’s going to be hard to effectively connect the financial entities into some kind of sex-trafficking scheme. The institutions would likely not be privy to the details of claims,” Faddis said. While the financier’s prior legal case 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 complicit in the criminal activity of a customer, 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

Nevertheless, important aspects of the litigation could help Epstein survivors.

“The lawsuits have the potential to reveal more information about the continuing Epstein story,” Faddis said. “Despite the fact that there have been sort of walls put up at every turn for individuals pursuing this data, when there’s a lawsuit, there’s a evidence-gathering phase, and that legal procedure often requires release of information that was not formerly available.”

Attorney Brad Edwards said in a comment that the lawsuits could have a preventive impact and accomplish what lawmakers have failed to do.

“The lawsuits are necessary for complete justice for the victims of Jeffrey Epstein – as well as for future would-be victims who will be harmed from similar trafficking organizations – if our banks are not held accountable for the essential role each plays, either in supplying the necessary infrastructure for the illegal operation or identifying the financial component of these offenses and putting an end to it.

Edwards continued: “Our prospects are significantly higher of making a real difference than lawmakers, because we understand the facts and history of the matter and are not motivated by partisan interests but rather by a genuine desire to create substantial impact and to safeguard the survivors, who have already endured immense pain.

“Our handling of these issues without any political agenda and thus cannot be deterred by obstructions, protecting wealthy politically connected individuals, or the other shameful political maneuvering 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 criminal sex-trafficking enterprise for decades without being caught, we are taking a further significant action forward toward justice for victims.”

Bank Responses

When requested for a statement on the legal complaint, the Bank of New York Mellon said: “The allegations in the case are baseless, and we will strongly contest against it.”

Bank of America’s statement likewise stated: “We will vigorously defend ourselves in this case.”