🔗 Share this article

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

Epstein’s former associate Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s ex-girlfriend, was convicted of human trafficking in a 2021 trial for her involvement in the late financier’s exploitation of underage females – and sentenced to two decades behind bars.

At the same time, banks that had worked with Epstein, while not accepting fault, agreed to pay hundreds of millions in agreements to victims. Donald Trump even made disclosing the Epstein investigative files part of his campaign platform, and reiterated on his promise to do so in recent months.

Ultimately, Trump’s justice department did not make public these files, and his government has become involved in reports about social ties between him and Epstein. Assurances from lawmakers to release files have stalled, due to political jockeying and delays from federal authorities.

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

Legal Actions Aim at Major Banks

These lawsuits, filed by an anonymous plaintiff against Bank of America and the Bank of New York Mellon (BNY), allege that these banking giants unlawfully facilitated Epstein’s sex trafficking. The suits are led by Sigrid S McCawley, of Boies Schiller Flexner, and lawyer 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 financial support from both individuals and institutions, including BNY,” the legal filing claims. “Egregiously, the institution had a abundance of knowledge regarding Epstein’s sex trafficking operation but chose profit over protecting the victims.”

The Bank of America suit mirrors these claims, declaring the institution “knowingly provided the financial support and the appearance of respectability for Epstein and his accomplices to fuel their global trafficking enterprise under the guise of non-criminal business activities”. The legal action also said Bank of America failed to file suspicious activity reports.

Legal Experts Offer Perspectives on Legal Hurdles

Longtime attorneys who commented on the matter said establishing liability would be difficult. But they also identified possible outcomes which could offer comfort to accusers or disclosure of long-sought information.

Attorney Neama Rahmani, a ex-government lawyer who established a legal firm, said proof has to show that an institution’s actions led to harm.

“In my view, the case faces significant obstacles – and obviously I am on the side of the survivors, and I want them to get answers and criminal justice and financial recovery,” Rahmani said. Some claims might be too tangential from a juridical perspective.

“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 injury wouldn’t have occurred”. In this case, that would boil down to “absent the institution’s involvement, the survivor maybe wouldn’t have been exploited”, Rahmani clarified.

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 standard. So any improper behavior there was, if there was any wrongdoing … 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 serve as a warning that relationships with those accused of wrongdoing can have negative consequences for them.

“It represents a reputational disaster,” he said. If the financial institutions try to get these suits thrown out and fail, the attorney anticipates a swift settlement. “No party desires to pursue any of the Epstein-related cases.”

Eric Faddis, a litigator and founder of the legal practice his firm and ex-government lawyer, said corporations can be responsible. In this scenario, “whether the banks have liability is going to depend, in part, on their level of awareness, whether they had any knowledge 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 financial entities into some kind of sex-trafficking scheme. The institutions would likely not be privy to the particulars of claims,” Faddis said. While Epstein’s Florida conviction was public, “it’s not illegal for a bank to have a client who’s an unsavory person”.

“However, it is unlawful for a bank to in any way be involved in the criminal activity of a client, but these aspects are very different, and so I think that it’s going to be a difficult case against the institutions.”

Possible Advantages for Victims

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

“The lawsuits have the potential to reveal more information about the ongoing Epstein saga,” the attorney said. “Despite the fact that there have been obstacles erected at every turn for folks seeking this data, when there’s a legal action, there’s a discovery process, and that legal procedure often requires disclosure of materials that was not previously public.”

Edwards said in a statement that the suits could have a preventive impact and achieve what legislators have failed 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 comparable criminal networks – if our financial institutions are not held accountable for the essential role each plays, either in supplying the necessary infrastructure for the illegal operation or recognizing the monetary aspect 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 facts and background of the matter and are not driven by politics but rather by a genuine desire to create substantial impact and to safeguard the victims, who have already suffered tremendously.

“We approach these matters without any partisan motives 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.”

McCawley said in a declaration: “As Congress works toward unraveling how the financier was able to orchestrate his illegal trafficking operation for many years without being caught, we are taking another important step forward toward legal resolution for survivors.”

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 likewise stated: “We will vigorously defend ourselves in this case.”