🔗 Share this article

Over many years, victims of Jeffrey Epstein have sought accountability. For a while, it seemed like they would get it.

Ghislaine Maxwell, the financier’s one-time partner, was found guilty of human trafficking in a 2021 trial for her role in the late financier’s exploitation of teen girls – and sentenced to 20 years imprisonment.

At the same time, financial firms that had worked with Epstein, although not accepting fault, agreed to pay hundreds of millions in agreements to victims. Former President Trump even made releasing the Epstein investigative files part of his campaign platform, and reiterated on his commitment to do so in recent months.

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

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

Lawsuits Target Leading Financial Institutions

These lawsuits, filed by an anonymous plaintiff against a major U.S. bank and the BNY Mellon, claim that these financial powerhouses unlawfully facilitated Epstein’s sex trafficking. The suits are helmed by attorney Sigrid McCawley, of a prominent law firm, 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 vast fortune and power, but through financial backing and monetary assistance from both individuals and organizations, including the bank,” one lawsuit states. “Egregiously, BNY had a abundance of knowledge 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 co-conspirators to fuel their international sex trafficking organization under the pretext of legal commercial dealings”. The legal action also said Bank of America failed to file suspicious activity reports.

Attorneys Weigh In on Case Challenges

Experienced lawyers who spoke to the situation said establishing liability would be difficult. But they also noted potential results which could provide solace to plaintiffs or disclosure of previously hidden details.

Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor who founded 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 victims, and I want them to get answers and criminal justice and financial recovery,” the attorney said. Some claims might be too tangential 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 occurred”. In this case, that would translate to “but for the bank’s conduct, the survivor maybe wouldn’t have been exploited”, Rahmani clarified.

A lawyer would also have to go beyond a basic causation test. “Is not just ‘but for’ causation. 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 defendant’s misconduct has to have been a substantial factor in causing the victim’s suffering.

“Through maintaining financial ties to Epstein, is that a decisive element? I don’t know.”

Liability aside, such lawsuits could serve as a warning that associations with those accused of wrongdoing can have damaging implications for them.

“It represents a reputational disaster,” Rahmani noted. If the financial institutions try to get these suits dismissed and fail, the attorney expects a quick resolution. “No party desires to pursue any of the legal matters tied to Epstein.”

Attorney Eric Faddis, a trial attorney and principal of the legal practice his firm and ex-government lawyer, said corporations can be responsible. In this scenario, “whether the banks have liability is going to depend, in part, on what the banks knew, if they were informed of claimed misconduct or criminal wrongdoing”, and in some way provided assistance to Epstein.

“However, even in that case, I think it’s going to be hard to effectively connect the financial entities into some kind of trafficking operation. The institutions would probably not be privy to the details of allegations,” Faddis said. While Epstein’s Florida conviction was public, “it’s not illegal for a financial institution to have a customer who’s an disreputable individual”.

“However, it is unlawful for a financial firm to somehow 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 banks.”

Possible Advantages for Survivors

Nevertheless, important aspects of the litigation could help Epstein survivors.

“These cases may uncover additional details about the ongoing Epstein saga,” Faddis said. “Even though there have been obstacles erected at every turn for individuals pursuing this data, when there’s a legal action, there’s a evidence-gathering phase, and that discovery process often mandates release of information that was not formerly available.”

Edwards said in a statement that the lawsuits could have a deterrent effect and accomplish what lawmakers have failed to do.

“Legal actions are essential for full accountability for the survivors of the financier – as well as for potential targets who will suffer from comparable criminal networks – if our banks are not held accountable for the essential role each plays, either in supplying the required framework for the illegal operation or recognizing the monetary aspect of these offenses and putting an end to it.

He added: “Our prospects are significantly higher of making a real difference than lawmakers, because we know the details and history of the case and are not driven by politics but rather by a sincere intention to make a real difference and to safeguard 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 shameful political maneuvering you and the rest of the world have had to watch unfold recently.”

Attorney Sigrid McCawley said in a declaration: “As Congress works toward unraveling how Jeffrey Epstein was able to orchestrate his criminal sex-trafficking enterprise for decades without detection, we are taking another important step forward toward legal resolution for survivors.”

Institutional Reactions

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

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