🔗 Share this article

Over many years, victims of Jeffrey Epstein have sought accountability. For a while, it seemed like they would get it.

Epstein’s former associate Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s ex-girlfriend, was convicted of sex trafficking four years ago for her role in the late financier’s exploitation of underage females – and given to two decades behind bars.

Meanwhile, banks that had worked with Epstein, while 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 in recent months.

In the end, Trump’s justice department did not make public these records, and his administration has become embroiled in reports about personal connections between him and Epstein. Congressional promises to disclose documents have lagged, due to partisan maneuvering and justice department foot-dragging.

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

Legal Actions Aim at Major Banks

The legal complaints, filed by an unnamed accuser against a major U.S. bank and the Bank of New York Mellon (BNY), allege that these financial powerhouses illicitly enabled Epstein’s sex trafficking. The suits are helmed by attorney Sigrid McCawley, of Boies Schiller Flexner, and Brad Edwards of his legal practice, who have consistently advocated for Epstein victims.

“The financier carried out these offenses by means of not only his own extraordinary wealth and power, but through access to funding and financial support from both private parties and organizations, including BNY,” one lawsuit states. “Shockingly, the institution had a plethora of information regarding Epstein’s sex trafficking operation but opted for financial gain over safeguarding those harmed.”

The Bank of America suit mirrors these claims, asserting the institution “deliberately supplied the monetary resources and the veneer of institutional legitimacy for Epstein and his co-conspirators 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 suspicious activity reports.

Legal Experts Weigh In on Legal Hurdles

Experienced lawyers who commented on the matter said proving such a case would be difficult. But they also identified potential results which could offer comfort to plaintiffs or disclosure of long-sought information.

Neama Rahmani, a ex-government lawyer who founded a legal firm, said proof 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 clearly I am on the side of the survivors, and I want them to get explanations 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 lawyer would need to prove causation, 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 survivor maybe wouldn’t have been trafficked”, Rahmani clarified.

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 substantial factor: that is the standard. So whatever misconduct there was, if there was any wrongdoing … the bank’s actions has to have been a key contributor in causing the plaintiff harm.

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

Regardless of legal responsibility, such lawsuits 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 banks try to get these suits thrown out and are unsuccessful, the attorney expects a quick resolution. “No one wants to go litigate any of the Epstein-related cases.”

Attorney Eric Faddis, a trial attorney and founder of the legal practice Varner Faddis and ex-government lawyer, said corporations can be responsible. In this situation, “whether the banks have liability is going to depend, in part, on what the banks knew, 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 banks into some kind of sex-trafficking scheme. The institutions would likely not be aware of the particulars of allegations,” Faddis said. While the financier’s prior legal case was known, “there’s no law against 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 client, but those two issues are distinct, and so I think that it’s going to be a tough lawsuit against the banks.”

Possible Advantages for Victims

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

“The lawsuits have the potential to reveal more information about the continuing Epstein story,” Faddis said. “Despite the fact that there have been obstacles erected at every turn for folks pursuing this information, when there’s a lawsuit, there’s a discovery process, and that discovery process often requires disclosure of materials that was not previously public.”

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

“Legal actions are essential for full accountability for the survivors of the financier – as well as for potential targets who will be harmed from comparable criminal networks – if our banks are not made responsible for the essential role each plays, either in supplying the necessary infrastructure for the criminal enterprise or identifying the financial component of these offenses and stopping it.

He added: “Our prospects are significantly higher of making a real difference than lawmakers, because we know the details and background of the case and are not motivated by politics but rather by a genuine desire to create substantial impact and to protect the survivors, who have already suffered tremendously.

“We approach these matters without any partisan motives 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 orchestrate his illegal trafficking operation for many years without detection, we are taking a further significant action forward toward justice for victims.”

Institutional Reactions

Asked for comment on the lawsuit, BNY said: “The claims in the lawsuit are meritless, and we will strongly contest against it.”

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