🔗 Share this article

Over many years, survivors of the late financier Jeffrey Epstein have sought justice. For a while, it seemed like they would achieve it.

Epstein’s former associate Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s ex-girlfriend, was found guilty of sex trafficking four years ago for her role in the late financier’s sexual abuse of teen girls – and sentenced to 20 years imprisonment.

Meanwhile, banks that had done business with Epstein, while not accepting fault, agreed to pay substantial sums in settlements to victims. Former President Trump even made disclosing the Epstein investigative files part of his campaign platform, and doubled down on his commitment to do so early this year.

Ultimately, the administration’s Department of Justice did not release these files, and his administration has become involved in reports about personal connections between him and Epstein. Assurances from lawmakers to release files have stalled, due to political jockeying and justice department foot-dragging.

However recent legal actions could provide clarity on Epstein’s operations amid the stalemate – regardless of their outcome.

Lawsuits Aim at Leading Financial Institutions

The legal complaints, filed by an anonymous plaintiff against a major U.S. bank and the BNY Mellon, claim that these financial powerhouses unlawfully facilitated Epstein’s trafficking ring. The suits are helmed by Sigrid S McCawley, of a prominent law firm, and lawyer Brad Edwards of his legal practice, who have consistently advocated for survivors of Epstein’s abuse.

“The financier carried out these offenses 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 the bank,” one lawsuit claims. “Egregiously, the institution had a plethora of information regarding Epstein’s trafficking network but opted for financial gain over safeguarding those harmed.”

The Bank of America suit mirrors these claims, 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 guise of legal commercial dealings”. The suit also said the bank neglected to file mandatory financial alerts.

Attorneys Offer Perspectives on Legal Hurdles

Experienced lawyers who commented on the situation said establishing liability would be challenging. But they also noted potential results which could offer comfort to plaintiffs or release of previously hidden details.

Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor who founded West Coast Trial lawyers, 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 answers and legal redress and financial recovery,” the attorney said. Some claims might be too tangential from a legal standpoint.

“It all comes down to evidence,” he said. A attorney would need to prove cause and effect, which would mean “but for the defendant’s conduct, the injury wouldn’t have happened”. In this case, that would translate to “absent the institution’s involvement, the survivor maybe wouldn’t have been trafficked”, the lawyer explained.

An attorney 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 bank’s actions has to have been a key contributor in causing the plaintiff harm.

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

Liability aside, suits like this could serve as a warning that associations 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 dismissed and are unsuccessful, the attorney expects a swift settlement. “No one wants to go litigate any of the legal matters tied to Epstein.”

Eric Faddis, a trial attorney and founder of the Colorado law firm Varner Faddis and former prosecutor, said corporations can be responsible. In this scenario, “if the institutions bear fault is going to hinge, in part, on what the banks knew, whether they had any knowledge 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 effectively connect the financial entities into some kind of trafficking operation. The banks would probably not be privy to the details of claims,” Faddis said. While Epstein’s Florida conviction 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 bank to in any way be complicit in the criminal activity of a customer, but these aspects are very different, and so I think that it’s going to be a difficult case against the institutions.”

Potential Benefits for Survivors

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

“These cases may uncover additional details about the continuing Epstein story,” the attorney 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 lawsuit, there’s a evidence-gathering phase, and that legal procedure often requires release of information that was not formerly available.”

Attorney Brad Edwards said in a statement that the lawsuits could have a deterrent effect 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 future would-be victims who will be harmed from comparable criminal networks – if our banks are not made responsible for the crucial part each performs, either in providing the necessary infrastructure for the illegal operation or identifying the financial component of these crimes and stopping it.

He added: “Our prospects are significantly higher of making a real difference than Congress, because we understand the facts and history of the matter and are not driven by partisan interests but rather by a sincere intention to create substantial impact and to protect the survivors, who have already suffered tremendously.

“We approach these matters without any political agenda and thus cannot be deterred by obstructions, shielding influential figures, or the other embarrassing partisan gamesmanship you and the rest of the world have had to watch unfold recently.”

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

Bank Responses

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

The bank’s response similarly remarked: “We intend to firmly protect our interests in this matter.”