🔗 Share this article

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

Ghislaine Maxwell, the financier’s one-time partner, was convicted of human trafficking four years ago for her role in the deceased billionaire’s exploitation of teen girls – and given to 20 years imprisonment.

At the same time, financial firms that had worked with Epstein, although not admitting wrongdoing, agreed to pay hundreds of millions in settlements to victims. Former President Trump even made releasing the Epstein investigative files part of his election promises, and doubled down on his commitment to do so in recent months.

Ultimately, the administration’s Department of Justice did not release these files, and his administration has become embroiled in allegations about personal connections between him and Epstein. Congressional promises to release files have stalled, due to partisan maneuvering and delays from federal authorities.

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

Lawsuits Aim at Leading Financial Institutions

The legal complaints, filed by an unnamed accuser against a major U.S. bank and the BNY Mellon, allege that these financial powerhouses illicitly enabled Epstein’s trafficking ring. The cases are led by attorney Sigrid McCawley, of a prominent law firm, and lawyer Brad Edwards of Edwards Henderson, who have consistently advocated for survivors of Epstein’s abuse.

“The financier carried out these offenses by means of not only his own extraordinary wealth and influence, but through financial backing and monetary assistance from both private parties and institutions, 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 echoes these allegations, asserting the institution “knowingly provided the financial support and the appearance of respectability for Epstein and his accomplices to fuel their international sex trafficking organization under the pretext of legal commercial dealings”. The suit also said Bank of America neglected to file suspicious activity reports.

Attorneys Weigh In on Case Challenges

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

Attorney Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor who established a legal firm, said evidence has to show that an bank’s conduct resulted in harm.

“In my view, the case faces significant obstacles – and clearly I am on the side of the survivors, and I want them to get answers and legal redress and compensation,” Rahmani said. Certain allegations might be not directly related from a juridical perspective.

“It all comes down to evidence,” Rahmani said. A attorney would need to prove cause and effect, which would mean “but for the defendant’s conduct, the harm wouldn’t have occurred”. In this instance, 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 further than 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 any improper behavior there was, if there was any wrongdoing … the defendant’s misconduct has to have been a key contributor in leading to the plaintiff harm.

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

Liability aside, such lawsuits could serve as a warning that associations 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 fail, the attorney expects a quick resolution. “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 companies can be responsible. In this situation, “whether the banks have liability is going to hinge, in part, on their level of awareness, 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 difficult to sort of loop the banks into some kind of trafficking operation. The banks would likely not be aware of the details of claims,” Faddis said. While the financier’s prior legal case was public, “there’s no law against for a financial institution to have a customer who’s an unsavory person”.

“However, it is unlawful for a financial firm to somehow be involved in the criminal activity of a client, but those two issues are very different, and so I think that it’s going to be a difficult case against the institutions.”

Potential Benefits for Survivors

That said, important aspects of the litigation could assist those affected by Epstein.

“These cases may uncover additional details about the ongoing Epstein saga,” Faddis said. “Even though there have been sort of walls put up at every turn for folks pursuing this information, when there’s a lawsuit, there’s a evidence-gathering phase, and that legal procedure often requires release of information that was not previously public.”

Attorney Brad Edwards said in a statement that the suits could have a preventive impact and achieve what lawmakers have failed to do.

“Legal actions are essential for full accountability for the victims of Jeffrey Epstein – as well as for potential targets who will be harmed from comparable criminal networks – if our banks are not held accountable for the crucial part each performs, either in supplying the required framework for the criminal enterprise or recognizing the financial component of these crimes and putting an end to it.

Edwards continued: “We have a far better chance of effecting meaningful change than lawmakers, because we understand the facts and history of the case and are not driven by politics but rather by a sincere intention to make a real difference and to safeguard the victims, who have already suffered tremendously.

“Our handling of these issues without any political agenda and thus will not be swayed by shutdowns, protecting wealthy politically connected individuals, or the other embarrassing partisan gamesmanship you and the rest of the world have had to watch unfold recently.”

McCawley said in a declaration: “As Congress works toward unraveling how Jeffrey Epstein was able to conduct his illegal trafficking operation for many years without being caught, we are taking a further significant action forward toward legal resolution for victims.”

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 strongly contest against it.”

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