🔗 Share this article

For years, survivors of Jeffrey Epstein have demanded accountability. For a while, it appeared like they would get it.

Ghislaine Maxwell, the financier’s one-time partner, was convicted of sex trafficking four years ago for her involvement in the late financier’s sexual abuse of underage females – and given to 20 years imprisonment.

Meanwhile, banks that had done business with Epstein, while not admitting wrongdoing, agreed to pay hundreds of millions in agreements to survivors. Donald Trump even made releasing the Epstein investigative files 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 government has become involved in allegations about social ties between him and Epstein. Congressional promises to release files have stalled, due to partisan maneuvering and delays from federal authorities.

But recent legal actions could provide clarity on Epstein’s activities amid the deadlock – irrespective of their result.

Legal Actions Aim at Leading Financial Institutions

These lawsuits, submitted by an anonymous plaintiff against Bank of America and the BNY Mellon, allege that these financial powerhouses illicitly enabled Epstein’s trafficking ring. The suits are led by Sigrid S McCawley, of a prominent law firm, and lawyer Brad Edwards of Edwards Henderson, 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 monetary assistance from both individuals and institutions, including the bank,” one lawsuit states. “Egregiously, the institution had a plethora of information regarding Epstein’s sex trafficking operation but opted for financial gain over safeguarding those harmed.”

The complaint against Bank of America mirrors these claims, asserting the institution “knowingly provided the monetary resources and the veneer of institutional legitimacy for Epstein and his accomplices to fuel their international sex trafficking organization under the pretext of legal commercial dealings”. The legal action also said the bank failed to file mandatory financial alerts.

Attorneys Offer Perspectives on Case Challenges

Experienced lawyers who commented on the situation said establishing liability would be challenging. But they also identified possible outcomes which could offer comfort to plaintiffs or release of long-sought information.

Attorney Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor who established West Coast Trial lawyers, said evidence has to show that an bank’s conduct led to harm.

“In my view, the case faces significant obstacles – and clearly I am on the side of the victims, and I want them to get explanations and legal redress and financial recovery,” the attorney said. Certain allegations might be too tangential from a juridical perspective.

“It all comes down to evidence,” he said. A attorney would need to prove cause and effect, which would mean “if not for the bank’s actions, the harm wouldn’t have occurred”. In this instance, 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 “but for” measure. “It’s not solely about indirect cause. It also has to be a significant element: that is the legal test. So any improper behavior there was, if there was any wrongdoing … the bank’s actions has to have been a key contributor in leading to the plaintiff harm.

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

Liability aside, suits like this could serve as a warning that relationships with those accused of wrongdoing can have damaging implications for them.

“It’s a PR nightmare,” Rahmani noted. If the banks try to get these cases thrown out and fail, Rahmani anticipates a quick resolution. “No party desires to pursue any of the Epstein-related cases.”

Attorney Eric Faddis, a litigator and founder of the legal practice Varner Faddis and former prosecutor, said corporations can be liable. In this scenario, “whether the banks have liability is going to depend, in part, on their level of awareness, whether they had any knowledge of alleged abuse or illegal acts”, and in some way provided assistance to Epstein.

“However, even in that case, I think it’s going to be difficult to sort of loop the financial entities into some kind of sex-trafficking scheme. The banks would likely not be privy to the particulars of allegations,” Faddis said. While Epstein’s Florida conviction was known, “there’s no law against for a financial institution to have a client who’s an disreputable individual”.

“It is illegal for a financial firm to somehow be involved in the illegal actions 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 Survivors

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

“The lawsuits have the potential to reveal more information about the ongoing Epstein saga,” Faddis said. “Even though there have been obstacles erected at every turn for individuals seeking this information, when there’s a legal action, 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 comment that the lawsuits could have a preventive impact and accomplish what legislators have failed to do.

“The lawsuits are necessary for complete justice for the survivors of Jeffrey Epstein – as well as for future would-be victims who will be harmed from comparable criminal networks – if our financial institutions are not held accountable for the crucial part each performs, either in providing the necessary infrastructure for the criminal enterprise or identifying the monetary aspect of these crimes and putting an end to it.

He added: “We have a far better chance of effecting meaningful change 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.

“We approach these matters without any partisan motives and thus cannot be deterred by obstructions, protecting wealthy politically connected individuals, 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 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

Asked for comment on the legal complaint, BNY said: “The allegations in the case are baseless, and we will vigorously defend against it.”

Bank of America’s statement likewise stated: “We intend to firmly protect our interests in this matter.”