🔗 Share this article

For years, victims of the late financier Jeffrey Epstein have sought justice. For a while, it appeared like they would achieve it.

Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s ex-girlfriend, was found guilty of sex trafficking four years ago for her involvement in the deceased billionaire’s exploitation of underage females – and sentenced to two decades behind bars.

At the same time, financial firms that had done business with Epstein, although not accepting fault, paid substantial sums in agreements to victims. 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.

In the end, the administration’s Department of Justice did not release these records, and his government has become involved in reports about social ties between him and Epstein. Congressional promises to release files have lagged, due to partisan maneuvering and delays from federal authorities.

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

Lawsuits Target Leading Financial Institutions

These lawsuits, submitted by an anonymous plaintiff against a major U.S. bank and the Bank of New York Mellon (BNY), claim that these banking giants illicitly enabled Epstein’s sex trafficking. The suits are helmed by attorney Sigrid McCawley, of Boies Schiller Flexner, and lawyer Brad Edwards of his legal practice, who have long represented survivors of Epstein’s abuse.

“The financier carried out these offenses by means of not only his own extraordinary wealth and power, but through financial backing and financial support from both individuals and institutions, including the bank,” the legal filing claims. “Egregiously, BNY had a abundance of knowledge regarding Epstein’s trafficking network but chose profit over protecting the victims.”

The complaint against Bank of America mirrors these claims, asserting the institution “knowingly provided the monetary resources and the appearance of respectability for Epstein and his accomplices to support their global trafficking enterprise under the guise of legal commercial dealings”. The suit also said the bank neglected to file mandatory financial alerts.

Legal Experts Offer Perspectives on Case Challenges

Experienced lawyers who spoke to the situation said proving such a case would be challenging. But they also noted possible outcomes which could provide solace to plaintiffs or disclosure of long-sought information.

Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor who founded West Coast Trial lawyers, said evidence 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 obviously I am on the side of the survivors, and I want them to get explanations and legal redress and financial recovery,” Rahmani said. Some claims might be too tangential from a juridical perspective.

“The case hinges on proof,” Rahmani said. A attorney would need to prove causation, which would mean “but for the defendant’s conduct, the injury wouldn’t have happened”. In this instance, that would boil down to “but for the bank’s conduct, the survivor maybe wouldn’t have been exploited”, the lawyer clarified.

An attorney would also have to go further than a “but for” measure. “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 victim’s suffering.

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

Liability aside, suits like this could serve as a warning that relationships with those involved in alleged crimes can have damaging implications for them.

“It’s a PR nightmare,” he said. If the banks try to get these suits dismissed and are unsuccessful, Rahmani anticipates a swift settlement. “No party desires to pursue any of the legal matters tied to Epstein.”

Eric Faddis, a litigator and principal of the legal practice his firm and former prosecutor, said corporations can be responsible. In this scenario, “if the institutions bear fault is going to depend, in part, on what the banks knew, whether they had any knowledge of alleged abuse or illegal acts”, and somehow provided assistance to Epstein.

“But even then, I think it’s going to be difficult to sort of loop the banks into some kind of trafficking operation. The institutions would probably not be aware of the details of claims,” the lawyer said. While Epstein’s Florida conviction was known, “it’s not illegal for a financial institution to have a customer who’s an disreputable individual”.

“It is illegal for a financial firm to in any way be complicit 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.”

Possible Advantages for Victims

That said, important aspects of the litigation could assist those affected by Epstein.

“These cases may uncover additional details about the ongoing Epstein saga,” the attorney said. “Despite the fact that there have been obstacles erected at every turn for folks seeking this data, when there’s a legal action, there’s a discovery process, and that discovery process often requires disclosure of materials that was not previously public.”

Attorney Brad Edwards said in a comment that the lawsuits could have a preventive impact and achieve what lawmakers have failed to do.

“The lawsuits are necessary for complete justice for the survivors of Jeffrey Epstein – as well as for potential targets who will be harmed from similar trafficking organizations – if our financial institutions are not made responsible for the crucial part each plays, either in providing the required framework for the illegal operation or identifying the financial component of these offenses and putting an end to it.

He added: “We have a far better chance of effecting meaningful change than Congress, because we understand the details and background of the case and are not driven by politics but rather by a genuine desire to create substantial impact and to safeguard the survivors, who have already endured immense pain.

“We approach these matters without any partisan motives and thus will not be swayed by obstructions, protecting wealthy politically connected individuals, or the other embarrassing partisan gamesmanship 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 the financier was able to orchestrate his criminal sex-trafficking enterprise for many years without detection, we are taking another important step forward toward justice for victims.”

Institutional Reactions

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

The bank’s response similarly remarked: “We will vigorously defend ourselves in this matter.”