🔗 Share this article

For years, victims of 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 found guilty of human trafficking four years ago for her involvement in the late financier’s exploitation of teen girls – and given to two decades behind bars.

At the same time, financial firms that had done business with Epstein, while not accepting fault, paid hundreds of millions in settlements to victims. Former President Trump even made disclosing the documents related to the Epstein probe part of his campaign platform, and doubled down on his promise to do so early this year.

Ultimately, the administration’s Department of Justice did not release these records, and his administration has become embroiled in reports about social ties between him and Epstein. Congressional promises to release files have lagged, due to political jockeying and delays from federal authorities.

But recent legal actions could shed light on Epstein’s activities amid the stalemate – irrespective of their result.

Legal Actions Target Major Banks

These lawsuits, filed by an unnamed accuser against a major U.S. bank and the BNY Mellon, claim that these financial powerhouses 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 consistently advocated for 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 private parties and organizations, including the bank,” one lawsuit claims. “Shockingly, BNY had a abundance of knowledge regarding Epstein’s sex trafficking operation but chose profit over protecting the victims.”

The complaint against Bank of America mirrors these claims, declaring the institution “knowingly provided the monetary resources and the veneer of institutional legitimacy for Epstein and his co-conspirators to support their global trafficking enterprise under the pretext of legal commercial dealings”. The suit also said the bank neglected to file mandatory financial alerts.

Attorneys Offer Perspectives on Legal Hurdles

Experienced lawyers who spoke to the matter said establishing liability would be challenging. But they also noted potential results which could offer comfort to plaintiffs or disclosure of long-sought information.

Attorney Neama Rahmani, a ex-government lawyer who established West Coast Trial lawyers, said evidence has to show that an bank’s conduct 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 compensation,” Rahmani said. Some claims might be too tangential from a juridical perspective.

“The case hinges on proof,” Rahmani said. A attorney would need to prove cause and effect, 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 victim maybe wouldn’t have been trafficked”, the lawyer clarified.

A lawyer would also have to go beyond a “but for” measure. “It’s not solely about indirect cause. It also has to be a substantial factor: that is the legal test. So whatever misconduct 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, such lawsuits could put institutions on notice that associations with those involved in alleged crimes can have negative consequences for them.

“It represents a reputational disaster,” Rahmani noted. If the financial institutions try to get these cases dismissed and are unsuccessful, the attorney anticipates a quick resolution. “No one wants to go litigate any of the legal matters tied to Epstein.”

Eric Faddis, a litigator and principal of the Colorado law firm his firm and former prosecutor, said companies can be liable. In this scenario, “if the institutions bear fault is going to hinge, in part, on their level of awareness, if they were informed of claimed misconduct or illegal acts”, and in some way offered support to Epstein.

“But even then, I think it’s going to be hard to sort of loop the financial entities into some kind of trafficking operation. The institutions would probably not be aware of the details of claims,” the lawyer said. While Epstein’s Florida conviction was public, “there’s no law against for a financial institution to have a customer who’s an disreputable individual”.

“It is illegal for a bank to somehow be involved in the illegal actions 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.”

Possible Advantages for Victims

That said, key elements of the litigation could help Epstein survivors.

“These cases may uncover additional details 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 legal procedure often mandates release of materials that was not previously public.”

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

“Legal actions are essential for full accountability for the survivors of Jeffrey Epstein – as well as for future would-be victims who will suffer from similar trafficking organizations – if our banks are not held accountable for the crucial part each plays, either in providing the required framework for the illegal operation or identifying the monetary aspect of these offenses and stopping it.

Edwards continued: “We have a far better chance of effecting meaningful change than Congress, because we understand the details and history of the case and are not driven by politics but rather by a genuine desire to create substantial impact and to safeguard the survivors, 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 shameful political maneuvering you and the rest of the world have had to watch unfold recently.”

McCawley said in a statement: “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 another important step 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 vigorously defend against it.”

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