🔗 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.

Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s ex-girlfriend, was convicted of human trafficking four years ago for her role in the deceased billionaire’s sexual abuse of teen girls – and sentenced to 20 years imprisonment.

Meanwhile, financial firms that had worked with Epstein, although not admitting wrongdoing, agreed to pay substantial sums in agreements to victims. Donald Trump even made disclosing the documents related to the Epstein probe part of his campaign platform, and doubled down on his commitment to do so early this year.

In the end, the administration’s Department of Justice did not release these records, and his government has become involved in allegations about social ties between him and Epstein. Assurances from lawmakers to release files have stalled, due to political jockeying and justice department foot-dragging.

However recent legal actions could shed light on Epstein’s operations amid the stalemate – regardless of their result.

Lawsuits Aim at Leading Financial Institutions

These lawsuits, submitted by an anonymous plaintiff against a major U.S. bank and the Bank of New York Mellon (BNY), claim that these banking giants unlawfully facilitated Epstein’s trafficking ring. The suits are helmed by Sigrid S McCawley, of a prominent law firm, and lawyer Brad Edwards of Edwards Henderson, who have consistently advocated for Epstein victims.

“Epstein committed these crimes by means of not only his own extraordinary wealth and influence, but through access to funding and monetary assistance from both individuals and organizations, including the bank,” the legal filing claims. “Egregiously, BNY had a plethora of information regarding Epstein’s sex trafficking operation but opted for financial gain over protecting the victims.”

The Bank of America suit mirrors these claims, asserting the institution “knowingly provided the monetary resources and the veneer of institutional legitimacy for Epstein and his accomplices to support their international sex trafficking organization under the guise of non-criminal business activities”. The suit also said Bank of America neglected to file mandatory financial alerts.

Legal Experts Offer Perspectives on Case Challenges

Longtime attorneys who commented on the matter said proving such a case would be challenging. But they also identified potential results which could provide solace to accusers or release of long-sought information.

Neama Rahmani, a ex-government lawyer who established West Coast Trial lawyers, 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 survivors, and I want them to get explanations and legal redress and financial recovery,” Rahmani said. Certain allegations might be too tangential from a juridical perspective.

“It all comes down to evidence,” Rahmani said. A lawyer would need to prove causation, which would mean “but for the defendant’s conduct, the injury wouldn’t have happened”. In this case, that would boil down to “absent the institution’s involvement, the survivor maybe wouldn’t have been trafficked”, the lawyer explained.

A lawyer would also have to go further than a basic causation test. “It’s not solely about indirect cause. It also has to be a significant element: that is the standard. So whatever misconduct there was, if there was any wrongdoing … the defendant’s misconduct has to have been a substantial factor in leading to the plaintiff harm.

“Through maintaining financial ties to Epstein, is that a substantial factor? I don’t know.”

Liability aside, such lawsuits could put institutions on notice that relationships with those accused of wrongdoing can have negative consequences for them.

“It’s a PR nightmare,” he said. If the financial institutions try to get these suits thrown out and fail, 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 Varner Faddis and ex-government lawyer, said corporations can be liable. In this scenario, “if the institutions bear fault is going to hinge, in part, on what the banks knew, whether they had any knowledge of alleged abuse or criminal wrongdoing”, and somehow provided assistance to Epstein.

“However, even in that case, I think it’s going to be hard to effectively connect the banks 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 public, “it’s not illegal for a bank to have a client who’s an disreputable individual”.

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

Potential Benefits for Survivors

Nevertheless, key elements of the legal proceedings could assist Epstein survivors.

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

Edwards said in a comment that the lawsuits could have a preventive impact and accomplish what lawmakers have been unable 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 banks are not made responsible for the essential role each performs, either in providing the required framework for the illegal operation or recognizing the monetary aspect of these crimes and putting an end to it.

Edwards continued: “We have a far better chance of making a real difference than Congress, because we understand the details and background of the case and are not driven by politics but rather by a genuine desire to make a real difference and to safeguard the survivors, who have already suffered tremendously.

“We approach these matters without any political agenda and thus will not be swayed by obstructions, shielding influential figures, or the other shameful political maneuvering you and the rest of the world have had to observe recently.”

McCawley said in a declaration: “While legislators attempt to uncover how the financier was able to orchestrate his criminal sex-trafficking enterprise for many years without being caught, we are taking a further significant action forward toward legal resolution for survivors.”

Institutional Reactions

Asked for comment on the lawsuit, the Bank of New York Mellon said: “The allegations in the case are baseless, and we will vigorously defend against it.”

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