🔗 Share this article

For years, victims of the late financier Jeffrey Epstein have demanded accountability. At one point, 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 deceased billionaire’s sexual abuse of teen girls – and sentenced to 20 years imprisonment.

At the same time, financial firms that had done business with Epstein, while not admitting wrongdoing, agreed to pay substantial sums in agreements to victims. Donald Trump even made releasing the Epstein investigative files part of his campaign platform, and doubled down on his commitment to do so in recent months.

In the end, Trump’s justice department did not make public these records, and his administration has become embroiled in allegations about personal connections between him and Epstein. Assurances from lawmakers to disclose documents have lagged, due to partisan maneuvering and delays from federal authorities.

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

Lawsuits Target Leading Financial Institutions

The legal complaints, filed 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 trafficking ring. The cases are led by Sigrid S McCawley, of Boies Schiller Flexner, and lawyer Brad Edwards of his legal practice, who have consistently advocated for Epstein victims.

“The financier carried out these offenses by means of not only his own vast fortune and power, but through financial backing and financial support from both individuals and institutions, including BNY,” one lawsuit states. “Egregiously, BNY had a abundance of knowledge regarding Epstein’s trafficking network but opted for financial gain over protecting the victims.”

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

Attorneys Offer Perspectives on Case Challenges

Experienced lawyers who spoke to the situation said establishing liability would be challenging. But they also noted potential results which could offer comfort to plaintiffs or disclosure of long-sought information.

Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor who established a legal firm, said proof has to show that an bank’s conduct led to harm.

“In my view, the case faces significant obstacles – and obviously I am on the side of the victims, and I want them to get answers and criminal justice and compensation,” the attorney said. Some claims might be not directly related from a juridical perspective.

“It all comes down to evidence,” Rahmani said. A attorney would need to prove causation, which would mean “if not for the bank’s actions, the injury wouldn’t have happened”. In this case, that would translate to “but for the bank’s conduct, the victim maybe wouldn’t have been trafficked”, the lawyer explained.

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 whatever misconduct there was, if there was any misconduct … the bank’s actions has to have been a substantial factor in leading to 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 represents a reputational disaster,” he said. If the financial institutions try to get these cases thrown out and fail, the attorney anticipates a swift settlement. “No one wants to go litigate any of the Epstein-related cases.”

Attorney Eric Faddis, a trial attorney and founder of the legal practice his firm and former prosecutor, said companies can be liable. In this scenario, “if the institutions bear fault is going to depend, in part, on their level of awareness, if they were informed of claimed misconduct or illegal acts”, and in some way offered support to Epstein.

“However, even in that case, I think it’s going to be hard to effectively connect the banks into some kind of sex-trafficking scheme. The banks would probably not be privy to the particulars of allegations,” the lawyer said. While the financier’s prior legal case was public, “there’s no law against for a bank to have a client who’s an unsavory person”.

“However, it is unlawful for a financial firm to in any way be complicit in the criminal activity of a client, but those two issues are distinct, and so I think that it’s going to be a tough lawsuit against the banks.”

Potential Benefits for Survivors

Nevertheless, key elements of the legal proceedings could assist Epstein survivors.

“These cases may uncover additional details about the ongoing Epstein saga,” Faddis said. “Despite the fact that there have been sort of walls put up at every turn for folks seeking this information, when there’s a legal action, there’s a evidence-gathering phase, 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 deterrent effect and achieve what legislators have been unable to do.

“The lawsuits are necessary for complete justice 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 essential role each performs, either in providing the required framework for the illegal operation or recognizing the monetary aspect of these crimes and putting an end to it.

He added: “Our prospects are significantly higher of effecting meaningful change than lawmakers, because we know the facts and history of the case and are not motivated by partisan interests but rather by a sincere intention to create substantial impact and to protect the victims, who have already endured immense pain.

“We approach these matters without any partisan motives and thus will not be swayed by shutdowns, shielding influential figures, or the other embarrassing partisan gamesmanship you and the rest of the world have had to watch unfold recently.”

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

Bank Responses

When requested for a statement on the lawsuit, BNY said: “The allegations in the case are baseless, and we will strongly contest against it.”

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