🔗 Share this article

For years, victims of Jeffrey Epstein have demanded accountability. At one point, it appeared like they would get it.

Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s ex-girlfriend, was convicted of human trafficking in a 2021 trial for her involvement in the deceased billionaire’s exploitation of underage females – and sentenced to two decades behind bars.

Meanwhile, banks that had worked with Epstein, while not admitting wrongdoing, agreed to pay hundreds of millions in settlements to survivors. Former President Trump even made disclosing the documents related to the Epstein probe part of his campaign platform, and reiterated on his commitment to do so early this year.

Ultimately, the administration’s Department of Justice did not make public these records, and his government has become embroiled in allegations about social ties between him and Epstein. Congressional promises to release files have lagged, due to partisan maneuvering and justice department foot-dragging.

But recent legal actions could shed light on Epstein’s operations amid the deadlock – regardless of their outcome.

Lawsuits Target Leading Financial Institutions

The legal complaints, submitted by an anonymous plaintiff against a major U.S. bank and the Bank of New York Mellon (BNY), allege that these banking giants unlawfully facilitated Epstein’s sex trafficking. The suits are led by attorney Sigrid McCawley, of Boies Schiller Flexner, and lawyer Brad Edwards of Edwards Henderson, who have long represented Epstein victims.

“Epstein committed these crimes by means of not only his own vast fortune and power, but through access to funding and financial support from both private parties and organizations, including BNY,” one lawsuit claims. “Egregiously, the institution had a abundance of knowledge regarding Epstein’s trafficking network but chose profit over protecting the victims.”

The Bank of America suit echoes these allegations, declaring the institution “deliberately supplied the monetary resources and the appearance of respectability for Epstein and his co-conspirators to support their international sex trafficking organization under the pretext of non-criminal business activities”. The legal action also said Bank of America failed to file mandatory financial alerts.

Legal Experts Weigh In on Case Challenges

Experienced lawyers who commented on the matter said proving such a case would be challenging. But they also identified potential results which could provide solace to accusers or release of previously hidden details.

Attorney Neama Rahmani, a ex-government lawyer who established West Coast Trial lawyers, said proof has to show that an institution’s actions 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 explanations and criminal justice and financial recovery,” the attorney said. Certain allegations might be not directly related from a legal standpoint.

“The case hinges on proof,” he said. A attorney would need to prove causation, which would mean “if not for the bank’s actions, the harm wouldn’t have occurred”. In this case, that would boil down to “but for the bank’s conduct, the survivor maybe wouldn’t have been exploited”, Rahmani clarified.

An attorney would also have to go beyond a basic causation test. “Is not just ‘but for’ causation. It also has to be a significant element: that is the standard. 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.

“Through maintaining financial ties to Epstein, is that a decisive element? I don’t know.”

Regardless of legal responsibility, suits like this could put institutions on notice that associations with those accused of wrongdoing can have negative consequences for them.

“It represents a reputational disaster,” Rahmani noted. If the banks try to get these cases dismissed and are unsuccessful, Rahmani expects a swift settlement. “No party desires to pursue any of the Epstein-related cases.”

Eric Faddis, a litigator and principal of the Colorado law firm Varner Faddis and former prosecutor, said companies can be liable. 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 provided assistance to Epstein.

“But even then, I think it’s going to be hard to sort of loop the banks into some kind of trafficking operation. The banks would probably not be aware of the details of allegations,” Faddis said. While the financier’s prior legal case was public, “there’s no law against for a bank to have a customer who’s an disreputable individual”.

“However, it is unlawful for a financial firm to somehow be complicit in the illegal actions of a customer, but these aspects are very different, and so I think that it’s going to be a difficult case against the banks.”

Potential Benefits for Victims

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 obstacles erected at every turn for folks pursuing this data, when there’s a lawsuit, there’s a evidence-gathering phase, and that discovery process often requires release of information that was not formerly available.”

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

“Legal actions are essential for full accountability for the victims of Jeffrey Epstein – as well as for future would-be victims who will suffer from comparable criminal networks – if our financial institutions are not made responsible for the essential role each performs, either in providing the required framework for the criminal enterprise or recognizing the monetary aspect of these offenses and stopping it.

Edwards continued: “Our prospects are significantly higher 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 genuine desire 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 will not be swayed by shutdowns, protecting wealthy politically connected individuals, or the other shameful political maneuvering you and the rest of the world have had to observe recently.”

Attorney Sigrid McCawley said in a statement: “While legislators attempt to uncover how Jeffrey Epstein was able to orchestrate his criminal sex-trafficking enterprise for decades without being caught, we are taking another important step forward toward justice for survivors.”

Institutional Reactions

When requested for a statement on the lawsuit, the Bank of New York Mellon said: “The allegations in the case are baseless, and we will vigorously defend against it.”

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