🔗 Share this article

Over many years, victims of the late financier Jeffrey Epstein have demanded justice. At one point, 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 late financier’s exploitation of teen girls – and sentenced to two decades behind bars.

Meanwhile, banks that had worked with Epstein, while not accepting fault, agreed to pay substantial sums in settlements to survivors. Donald Trump even made releasing the documents related to the Epstein probe part of his election promises, and doubled down on his promise to do so in recent months.

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

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

Legal Actions Aim at Major Banks

These lawsuits, submitted by an unnamed accuser against a major U.S. bank and the BNY Mellon, allege that these financial powerhouses illicitly enabled Epstein’s sex trafficking. The cases are led by Sigrid S McCawley, of Boies Schiller Flexner, and lawyer Brad Edwards of his legal practice, who have long represented survivors of Epstein’s abuse.

“Epstein committed these crimes by means of not only his own extraordinary wealth and influence, but through access to funding and financial support from both private parties and institutions, including BNY,” one lawsuit claims. “Shockingly, the institution had a plethora of information regarding Epstein’s trafficking network but chose profit over protecting the victims.”

The complaint against Bank of America 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 guise of non-criminal business activities”. The legal action also said the bank failed to file mandatory financial alerts.

Legal Experts Weigh In on Legal Hurdles

Experienced lawyers who spoke to the situation said establishing liability would be challenging. But they also noted possible outcomes which could offer comfort to plaintiffs or disclosure of previously hidden details.

Attorney Neama Rahmani, a ex-government lawyer who founded 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 victims, and I want them to get answers and criminal justice and compensation,” Rahmani said. Certain allegations might be not directly related from a legal standpoint.

“The case hinges on proof,” Rahmani said. A lawyer 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 case, that would boil down to “but for the bank’s conduct, the survivor maybe wouldn’t have been exploited”, Rahmani clarified.

A lawyer would also have to go beyond a basic causation test. “Is not just ‘but for’ causation. It also has to be a substantial factor: that is the legal test. So whatever misconduct there was, if there was any misconduct … the defendant’s misconduct has to have been a key contributor in causing the plaintiff harm.

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

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

“It represents a reputational disaster,” he said. If the banks try to get these cases thrown out and are unsuccessful, the attorney expects a swift settlement. “No party desires to pursue any of the legal matters tied to Epstein.”

Eric Faddis, a trial attorney and principal of the Colorado law firm Varner Faddis and former prosecutor, said companies can be liable. In this scenario, “if the institutions bear fault is going to depend, in part, on their level of awareness, whether they had any knowledge of alleged abuse or illegal acts”, and in some way offered support to Epstein.

“But even then, I think it’s going to be difficult to sort of loop the financial entities into some kind of trafficking operation. The banks would probably not be aware of the details of allegations,” Faddis said. While Epstein’s Florida conviction was known, “it’s not illegal for a financial institution to have a customer who’s an disreputable individual”.

“However, it is unlawful for a financial firm to in any way be involved in the illegal actions of a customer, but these aspects are distinct, and so I think that it’s going to be a tough lawsuit against the institutions.”

Potential Benefits for Survivors

That said, key elements of the litigation could help those affected by Epstein.

“These cases may uncover additional details about the ongoing Epstein saga,” Faddis said. “Even though there have been obstacles erected 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 materials that was not previously public.”

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

“Legal actions are essential for full accountability for the victims of the financier – as well as for future would-be victims who will be harmed from comparable criminal networks – if our financial institutions are not made responsible for the crucial part each plays, either in providing the necessary infrastructure for the criminal enterprise or identifying the monetary aspect of these offenses and putting an end to it.

He added: “Our prospects are significantly higher of effecting meaningful change than lawmakers, because we know the facts and background of the matter and are not motivated by politics but rather by a sincere intention to create substantial impact and to safeguard the victims, who have already suffered tremendously.

“We approach these matters without any political agenda and thus cannot be deterred by shutdowns, 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 Jeffrey Epstein was able to orchestrate his illegal trafficking operation for decades without detection, we are taking another important step forward toward justice for survivors.”

Institutional Reactions

Asked for comment 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 intend to firmly protect our interests in this case.”