🔗 Share this article

Over many 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 late financier’s exploitation of underage females – and given to 20 years imprisonment.

At the same time, financial firms that had done business with Epstein, while not admitting wrongdoing, paid hundreds of millions in agreements to victims. Former President Trump even made disclosing the Epstein investigative files part of his election promises, and reiterated on his promise to do so in recent months.

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 disclose documents have lagged, due to partisan maneuvering and justice department foot-dragging.

However two new lawsuits could shed light on Epstein’s activities amid the stalemate – irrespective of their result.

Lawsuits Target Leading Financial Institutions

These lawsuits, filed by an unnamed accuser against Bank of America and the BNY Mellon, claim that these financial powerhouses unlawfully facilitated Epstein’s trafficking ring. The cases are led by Sigrid S McCawley, of a prominent law firm, and Brad Edwards of his legal practice, who have consistently advocated for Epstein victims.

“Epstein committed these crimes by means of not only his own extraordinary wealth and influence, but through access to funding and monetary assistance from both private parties and organizations, including the bank,” the legal filing states. “Shockingly, the institution had a plethora of information regarding Epstein’s trafficking network but chose profit over safeguarding those harmed.”

The complaint against Bank of America echoes these allegations, 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 guise of legal commercial dealings”. The suit also said Bank of America neglected to file suspicious activity reports.

Attorneys Offer Perspectives on Legal Hurdles

Longtime attorneys who spoke to the matter said proving such a case would be challenging. But they also noted possible outcomes which could offer comfort to accusers or disclosure of long-sought information.

Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor who founded a legal firm, 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 legal redress and financial recovery,” Rahmani said. Certain allegations might be not directly related from a legal standpoint.

“The case hinges on proof,” he 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 “absent the institution’s involvement, the survivor maybe wouldn’t have been exploited”, the lawyer explained.

An attorney 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 bank’s actions has to have been a key contributor in leading to the victim’s suffering.

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

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

“It’s a PR nightmare,” he said. If the financial institutions try to get these cases thrown out and are unsuccessful, the attorney anticipates a swift settlement. “No party desires to pursue any of the Epstein-related cases.”

Attorney Eric Faddis, a litigator and founder of the Colorado law firm Varner Faddis and ex-government lawyer, said companies can be liable. In this situation, “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 criminal wrongdoing”, and somehow provided assistance to Epstein.

“But even then, I think it’s going to be hard to effectively connect the financial entities into some kind of sex-trafficking scheme. The banks would probably not be aware of the particulars of claims,” the lawyer said. While the financier’s prior legal case was public, “it’s not illegal for a financial institution to have a client who’s an unsavory person”.

“It is illegal for a financial firm to somehow be involved in the illegal actions of a client, but these aspects are distinct, and so I think that it’s going to be a difficult case against the banks.”

Potential Benefits for Survivors

Nevertheless, important aspects of the legal proceedings 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 data, when there’s a lawsuit, there’s a discovery process, and that discovery process often requires disclosure of information that was not previously public.”

Attorney Brad Edwards said in a statement that the lawsuits could have a deterrent effect and accomplish 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 banks are not made responsible for the crucial part each performs, either in providing the required framework for the criminal enterprise or identifying the financial component of these offenses and stopping it.

Edwards continued: “We have a far better chance of making a real difference than Congress, because we know the facts and history of the matter and are not driven by politics but rather by a genuine desire to make a real difference and to safeguard the survivors, who have already suffered tremendously.

“Our handling of these issues without any partisan motives and thus will not be swayed by shutdowns, shielding influential figures, or the other shameful political maneuvering you and the rest of the world have had to watch unfold recently.”

Attorney Sigrid McCawley said in a statement: “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 survivors.”

Institutional Reactions

When requested for a statement on the lawsuit, BNY said: “The claims in the lawsuit are meritless, and we will vigorously defend against it.”

Bank of America’s statement similarly remarked: “We will vigorously defend ourselves in this matter.”