🔗 Share this article

For years, victims 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 human trafficking four years ago for her role in the late financier’s exploitation of teen girls – and given to two decades behind bars.

Meanwhile, financial firms that had done business with Epstein, although not admitting wrongdoing, paid substantial sums in settlements to victims. Donald Trump even made releasing the documents related to the Epstein probe part of his election promises, and reiterated on his promise to do so in recent months.

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 disclose documents have stalled, due to partisan maneuvering and delays from federal authorities.

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

Legal Actions Target Major Banks

These lawsuits, filed by an anonymous plaintiff against a major U.S. bank and the Bank of New York Mellon (BNY), claim that these financial powerhouses unlawfully facilitated Epstein’s sex trafficking. The suits are helmed by Sigrid S McCawley, of a prominent law firm, 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 monetary assistance from both private parties and institutions, including BNY,” the legal filing states. “Shockingly, BNY had a plethora of information regarding Epstein’s sex trafficking operation but opted for financial gain over safeguarding those harmed.”

The Bank of America suit mirrors these claims, asserting the institution “knowingly provided the financial support and the veneer of institutional legitimacy for Epstein and his co-conspirators to fuel their international sex trafficking organization under the guise of legal commercial dealings”. The suit also said the bank neglected to file suspicious activity reports.

Legal Experts Weigh In on Legal Hurdles

Experienced lawyers who spoke to the situation said proving such a case would be difficult. But they also identified possible outcomes which could offer comfort to plaintiffs or release of previously hidden details.

Neama Rahmani, a ex-government lawyer who established a legal firm, said proof 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 explanations and legal redress and financial recovery,” Rahmani said. Certain allegations might be not directly related from a legal standpoint.

“It all comes down to evidence,” Rahmani said. A lawyer would need to prove cause and effect, which would mean “but for the defendant’s conduct, the harm wouldn’t have happened”. In this instance, that would translate to “but for the bank’s conduct, the victim maybe wouldn’t have been trafficked”, 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 legal test. So whatever misconduct there was, if there was any wrongdoing … the bank’s actions has to have been a substantial factor in leading to the plaintiff harm.

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

Liability aside, such lawsuits could serve as a warning that relationships with those accused of wrongdoing 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, the attorney anticipates a quick resolution. “No party desires to pursue any of the Epstein-related cases.”

Eric Faddis, a litigator and principal of the legal practice Varner Faddis and ex-government lawyer, said companies can be responsible. In this situation, “whether the banks have liability is going to hinge, in part, on their level of awareness, if they were informed of claimed misconduct or illegal acts”, and somehow offered support to Epstein.

“But even then, I think it’s going to be difficult to effectively connect the financial entities into some kind of trafficking operation. The institutions would likely not be aware of the details of claims,” Faddis said. While Epstein’s Florida conviction was known, “it’s not illegal for a financial institution to have a customer who’s an unsavory person”.

“However, it is unlawful for a bank to in any way be involved in the illegal actions of a client, but these aspects are very different, and so I think that it’s going to be a tough lawsuit against the institutions.”

Possible Advantages for Survivors

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

“These cases may uncover additional details about the continuing Epstein story,” the attorney said. “Despite the fact that there have been obstacles erected at every turn for folks seeking this data, when there’s a lawsuit, there’s a evidence-gathering phase, and that legal procedure often requires release of materials that was not formerly available.”

Attorney Brad Edwards said in a comment that the suits could have a preventive impact and accomplish what lawmakers have been unable to do.

“Legal actions are essential for full accountability for the victims 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 necessary infrastructure for the criminal enterprise or recognizing the monetary aspect of these crimes and stopping it.

He added: “We have a far better chance of effecting meaningful change than Congress, because we know the facts and history of the matter and are not driven by partisan interests 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 cannot be deterred by shutdowns, shielding influential figures, or the other shameful political maneuvering you and the rest of the world have had to watch unfold recently.”

McCawley said in a declaration: “As Congress works toward unraveling how the financier was able to orchestrate his criminal sex-trafficking enterprise for decades without detection, we are taking a further significant action forward toward justice for survivors.”

Bank Responses

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

Bank of America’s statement likewise stated: “We will vigorously defend ourselves in this matter.”