🔗 Share this article

Over many years, survivors of Jeffrey Epstein have demanded accountability. At one point, it appeared like they would achieve it.

Epstein’s former associate Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s ex-girlfriend, was convicted of sex trafficking in a 2021 trial for her role in the late financier’s sexual abuse of underage females – and given to 20 years imprisonment.

At the same time, financial firms that had done business with Epstein, while not accepting fault, paid hundreds of millions in agreements to victims. Donald Trump even made disclosing the documents related to the Epstein probe part of his campaign platform, and reiterated on his promise to do so in recent months.

In the end, Trump’s justice department did not release these records, 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 justice department foot-dragging.

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

Lawsuits Target Leading Financial Institutions

The legal complaints, filed by an anonymous plaintiff against Bank of America and the BNY Mellon, claim that these banking giants unlawfully facilitated Epstein’s sex trafficking. The cases are helmed by attorney Sigrid McCawley, of a prominent law firm, and lawyer 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 vast fortune and influence, but through access to funding and monetary assistance from both individuals and institutions, including the bank,” one lawsuit states. “Egregiously, the institution had a abundance of knowledge regarding Epstein’s sex trafficking operation but chose profit over protecting the victims.”

The complaint against Bank of America mirrors these claims, declaring the institution “knowingly provided the financial support and the veneer of institutional legitimacy for Epstein and his co-conspirators to fuel their global trafficking enterprise under the pretext of non-criminal business activities”. The suit also said Bank of America neglected to file suspicious activity reports.

Attorneys Weigh In on Legal Hurdles

Longtime attorneys who spoke to the matter said establishing liability would be challenging. But they also noted potential results which could provide solace to plaintiffs or release of previously hidden details.

Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor who founded 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 obviously I am on the side of the survivors, and I want them to get explanations and criminal justice and compensation,” Rahmani said. Certain allegations might be too tangential from a legal standpoint.

“The case hinges on proof,” he said. A lawyer would need to prove cause and effect, which would mean “but for the defendant’s conduct, the harm wouldn’t have happened”. In this instance, that would translate to “but for the bank’s conduct, the survivor maybe wouldn’t have been trafficked”, Rahmani explained.

A lawyer would also have to go beyond a basic causation test. “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 misconduct … the defendant’s misconduct has to have been a substantial factor in causing the victim’s suffering.

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

Regardless of legal responsibility, such lawsuits could put institutions on notice that relationships with those accused of wrongdoing can have damaging implications for them.

“It represents a reputational disaster,” Rahmani noted. If the financial institutions try to get these cases thrown out and are unsuccessful, 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 ex-government lawyer, said corporations can be liable. In this situation, “whether the banks have liability is going to hinge, in part, on what the banks knew, if they were informed of alleged abuse or illegal acts”, 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 sex-trafficking scheme. The banks would probably not be aware of the particulars of allegations,” 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 disreputable individual”.

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

Potential Benefits for Victims

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 lawsuit, there’s a discovery process, and that legal procedure often mandates disclosure of materials that was not formerly available.”

Edwards said in a comment that the lawsuits could have a preventive impact and accomplish what legislators have failed to do.

“Legal actions are essential for full accountability for the victims of the financier – as well as for potential targets who will suffer from comparable criminal networks – if our financial institutions are not held accountable for the essential role each performs, either in supplying the necessary infrastructure for the criminal enterprise or identifying the financial component of these crimes and stopping it.

Edwards continued: “Our prospects are significantly higher of making a real difference than lawmakers, because we know the facts and background of the case and are not motivated by partisan interests but rather by a sincere intention to create substantial impact and to protect the survivors, who have already endured immense pain.

“Our handling of these issues without any partisan motives and thus cannot be deterred 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.”

Attorney Sigrid McCawley said in a statement: “While legislators attempt to uncover how the financier was able to orchestrate his criminal sex-trafficking enterprise for many years without being caught, we are taking another important step forward toward legal resolution for victims.”

Bank Responses

When requested for a statement on the legal complaint, BNY said: “The allegations in the case are baseless, and we will strongly contest against it.”

The bank’s response likewise stated: “We intend to firmly protect our interests in this case.”