🔗 Share this article

For years, survivors of Jeffrey Epstein have demanded accountability. For a while, it appeared like they would get it.

Epstein’s former associate Ghislaine Maxwell, the financier’s one-time partner, was found guilty of sex trafficking four years ago for her involvement in the deceased billionaire’s exploitation of underage females – and sentenced to two decades behind bars.

Meanwhile, financial firms that had done business with Epstein, although not accepting fault, agreed to pay hundreds of millions in settlements to survivors. Donald Trump even made disclosing the Epstein investigative files part of his campaign platform, and doubled down on his promise to do so in recent months.

Ultimately, Trump’s justice department did not release these files, and his government has become involved in allegations about personal connections between him and Epstein. Assurances from lawmakers to release files have lagged, due to partisan maneuvering and delays from federal authorities.

But recent legal actions could provide clarity on Epstein’s operations amid the deadlock – regardless of their result.

Legal Actions Target Leading Financial Institutions

These lawsuits, submitted by an anonymous plaintiff against Bank of America and the BNY Mellon, allege that these banking giants unlawfully facilitated Epstein’s trafficking ring. The suits are led by attorney Sigrid McCawley, of Boies Schiller Flexner, 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 extraordinary wealth and power, but through financial backing and financial support from both private parties and organizations, including the bank,” one lawsuit states. “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, declaring 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 non-criminal business activities”. The legal action also said the bank neglected to file suspicious activity reports.

Attorneys Offer Perspectives on Case Challenges

Longtime attorneys who commented on the situation said proving such a case would be challenging. But they also noted potential results which could provide solace to plaintiffs or disclosure of long-sought information.

Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor 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 obviously I am on the side of the survivors, and I want them to get explanations and legal redress and compensation,” Rahmani said. Some claims might be too tangential from a legal standpoint.

“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 instance, that would boil down to “absent the institution’s involvement, the victim maybe wouldn’t have been exploited”, Rahmani clarified.

An attorney 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 standard. So whatever misconduct there was, if there was any wrongdoing … the defendant’s misconduct has to have been a key contributor in causing the plaintiff harm.

“Through maintaining financial ties to Epstein, is that a decisive element? It’s uncertain.”

Liability aside, such lawsuits could serve as a warning that relationships with those accused of wrongdoing can have damaging implications for them.

“It represents a reputational disaster,” he said. If the financial institutions try to get these suits dismissed and fail, Rahmani anticipates a swift settlement. “No one wants to go litigate any of the Epstein-related cases.”

Attorney 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 depend, in part, on what the banks knew, whether they had any knowledge of claimed misconduct or illegal acts”, and in some way provided assistance to Epstein.

“However, even in that case, I think it’s going to be difficult to sort of loop the financial entities into some kind of trafficking operation. The institutions would likely not be privy to the particulars of claims,” the lawyer said. While Epstein’s Florida conviction was known, “there’s no law against for a bank to have a client who’s an unsavory person”.

“However, it is unlawful for a bank to in any way be complicit in the illegal actions of a customer, but those two issues are distinct, and so I think that it’s going to be a difficult case against the institutions.”

Potential Benefits for Survivors

That said, key elements of the legal proceedings could assist those affected by Epstein.

“These cases may uncover additional details about the ongoing Epstein saga,” Faddis said. “Despite the fact that there have been sort of walls put up at every turn for individuals seeking this data, when there’s a legal action, there’s a discovery process, and that discovery process often requires release of materials that was not formerly available.”

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

“The lawsuits are necessary for complete justice for the victims of the financier – as well as for future would-be victims who will suffer from similar trafficking organizations – if our financial institutions are not made responsible for the crucial part each plays, either in providing 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 Congress, because we understand the details and history of the matter and are not driven by politics but rather by a sincere intention to create substantial impact and to protect the victims, who have already suffered tremendously.

“We approach these matters without any partisan motives and thus cannot be deterred by obstructions, shielding influential figures, or the other shameful political maneuvering 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 decades without detection, we are taking another important step forward toward legal resolution for victims.”

Bank Responses

When requested for a statement on the lawsuit, BNY 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.”