🔗 Share this article

Over many years, victims of the late financier Jeffrey Epstein have sought justice. At one point, it seemed like they would achieve it.

Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s ex-girlfriend, was convicted of sex trafficking four years ago for her role in the deceased billionaire’s sexual abuse of underage females – and given to two decades behind bars.

At the same time, banks that had done business with Epstein, while not accepting fault, agreed to pay hundreds of millions in agreements to survivors. Former President Trump even made releasing the documents related to the Epstein probe part of his election promises, and doubled down on his promise to do so early this year.

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

But two new lawsuits could provide clarity on Epstein’s activities amid the stalemate – regardless of their result.

Legal Actions Target Leading Financial Institutions

These lawsuits, submitted by an anonymous plaintiff against Bank of America and the Bank of New York Mellon (BNY), claim that these financial powerhouses illicitly enabled Epstein’s trafficking ring. The cases are led by Sigrid S McCawley, of Boies Schiller Flexner, and Brad Edwards of his legal practice, who have consistently advocated for survivors of Epstein’s abuse.

“Epstein committed these crimes by means of not only his own extraordinary wealth and influence, but through financial backing and financial support from both individuals and institutions, including the bank,” the legal filing states. “Egregiously, the institution had a abundance of knowledge regarding Epstein’s trafficking network but opted for financial gain over protecting the victims.”

The Bank of America suit echoes these allegations, declaring the institution “deliberately supplied the financial support and the veneer of institutional legitimacy for Epstein and his accomplices to fuel their global trafficking enterprise under the pretext of non-criminal business activities”. The suit also said the bank neglected to file suspicious activity reports.

Legal Experts Weigh In on Legal Hurdles

Longtime attorneys who spoke to the situation said proving such a case would be difficult. But they also identified potential results which could offer comfort to accusers or disclosure of previously hidden details.

Neama Rahmani, a ex-government lawyer who founded West Coast Trial lawyers, said evidence has to show that an bank’s conduct 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 answers and criminal justice and compensation,” Rahmani said. Certain allegations might be too tangential from a juridical perspective.

“It all comes down to evidence,” 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 happened”. In this instance, that would translate to “but for the bank’s conduct, the survivor maybe wouldn’t have been exploited”, the lawyer clarified.

A lawyer would also have to go further than a basic causation test. “Is not just ‘but for’ causation. It also has to be a substantial factor: that is the standard. 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 plaintiff harm.

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

Liability aside, suits like this could put institutions on notice that relationships with those accused of wrongdoing can have damaging implications for them.

“It’s a PR nightmare,” Rahmani noted. If the financial institutions try to get these cases dismissed and fail, Rahmani anticipates a quick resolution. “No one wants to go litigate any of the Epstein-related cases.”

Attorney Eric Faddis, a litigator and principal of the legal practice his firm and ex-government lawyer, said companies can be liable. In this situation, “whether the banks have liability is going to hinge, in part, on their level of awareness, 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 difficult to effectively connect the banks into some kind of sex-trafficking scheme. The institutions would likely not be privy to the details of allegations,” 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 disreputable individual”.

“However, it is unlawful for a bank to somehow be involved in the criminal activity of a client, but these aspects are very different, and so I think that it’s going to be a tough lawsuit against the banks.”

Potential Benefits for Victims

Nevertheless, important aspects of the legal proceedings could help Epstein survivors.

“The lawsuits have the potential to reveal more information about the ongoing Epstein saga,” the attorney said. “Even though there have been obstacles erected at every turn for folks seeking this information, when there’s a lawsuit, there’s a evidence-gathering phase, and that legal procedure often mandates release of information that was not formerly available.”

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

“Legal actions are essential for full accountability for the victims of the financier – as well as for future would-be victims who will suffer 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 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 background of the case and are not motivated by partisan interests but rather by a genuine desire to create substantial impact and to protect the survivors, who have already suffered tremendously.

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

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

Bank Responses

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

The bank’s response likewise stated: “We will vigorously defend ourselves in this case.”