🔗 Share this article

For years, survivors of Jeffrey Epstein have demanded accountability. For a while, it seemed 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 sexual abuse of underage females – and given to two decades behind bars.

Meanwhile, financial firms that had done business with Epstein, while not accepting fault, paid substantial sums in agreements to victims. Donald 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 allegations about personal connections between him and Epstein. Congressional promises to release files have lagged, due to political jockeying and delays from federal authorities.

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

Legal Actions Target Major Banks

These lawsuits, filed by an anonymous plaintiff against Bank of America and the BNY Mellon, allege that these financial powerhouses unlawfully facilitated Epstein’s sex trafficking. The suits are helmed by Sigrid S McCawley, of a prominent law firm, and 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 institutions, including the bank,” the legal filing claims. “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 mirrors these claims, declaring the institution “deliberately supplied the financial support and the appearance of respectability for Epstein and his accomplices to fuel their global trafficking enterprise under the guise 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 proving such a case would be challenging. But they also noted possible outcomes which could offer comfort to plaintiffs or disclosure of previously hidden details.

Neama Rahmani, a ex-government lawyer who established West Coast Trial lawyers, said proof has to show that an institution’s actions resulted in harm.

“In my view, the case faces significant obstacles – and obviously I am on the side of the survivors, and I want them to get answers and criminal justice and financial recovery,” Rahmani said. Some claims might be too tangential from a legal standpoint.

“It all comes down to evidence,” Rahmani said. A attorney would need to prove causation, which would mean “but for the defendant’s conduct, the harm wouldn’t have happened”. In this instance, that would translate to “absent the institution’s involvement, the victim maybe wouldn’t have been trafficked”, the lawyer 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 standard. So any improper behavior there was, if there was any misconduct … the defendant’s misconduct has to have been a key contributor in leading to the victim’s suffering.

“Through maintaining financial ties to Epstein, is that a substantial factor? 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,” Rahmani noted. If the financial institutions try to get these cases thrown out 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 founder of the Colorado law firm Varner Faddis and ex-government lawyer, said companies 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 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 banks into some kind of sex-trafficking scheme. The institutions would likely not be privy to the particulars of claims,” the lawyer said. While Epstein’s Florida conviction was public, “it’s not illegal for a bank to have a customer who’s an disreputable individual”.

“It is illegal for a bank to in any way be involved 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 banks.”

Potential Benefits for Victims

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

“These cases may uncover additional details about the continuing Epstein story,” Faddis said. “Even though there have been sort of walls put up at every turn for folks pursuing 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 previously public.”

Edwards said in a comment that the lawsuits could have a deterrent effect and accomplish what lawmakers have been unable to do.

“Legal actions are essential for full accountability 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 made responsible for the essential role each performs, either in supplying the required framework for the criminal enterprise or identifying the financial component of these offenses and stopping it.

He added: “Our prospects are significantly higher of effecting meaningful change than lawmakers, because we know the facts and background of the matter and are not motivated by partisan interests but rather by a sincere intention to make a real difference and to safeguard 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 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 Jeffrey Epstein 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 victims.”

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.”

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