🔗 Share this article

For years, victims of the late financier Jeffrey Epstein have demanded accountability. For a while, it seemed like they would get it.

Epstein’s former associate Ghislaine Maxwell, the financier’s one-time partner, was found guilty of human trafficking four years ago for her role in the deceased billionaire’s sexual abuse of underage females – and given to 20 years imprisonment.

Meanwhile, banks that had done business with Epstein, although not accepting fault, agreed to pay hundreds of millions in agreements to survivors. Donald Trump even made disclosing the documents related to the Epstein probe part of his election promises, and reiterated on his promise to do so early this year.

In the end, Trump’s justice department did not make public these files, and his government has become embroiled in reports about social ties between him and Epstein. Assurances from lawmakers to release files have lagged, due to partisan maneuvering and delays from federal authorities.

But recent legal actions could shed light on Epstein’s operations amid the deadlock – regardless of their result.

Legal Actions Target Major Banks

These lawsuits, submitted by an anonymous plaintiff against a major U.S. bank and the Bank of New York Mellon (BNY), claim that these banking giants unlawfully facilitated Epstein’s sex trafficking. The cases are helmed by Sigrid S McCawley, of a prominent law firm, and lawyer Brad Edwards of his legal practice, who have consistently advocated for survivors of Epstein’s abuse.

“Epstein committed these crimes by means of not only his own vast fortune and influence, but through financial backing and financial support from both individuals and institutions, including BNY,” the legal filing states. “Egregiously, BNY had a plethora of information regarding Epstein’s trafficking network but opted for financial gain over safeguarding those harmed.”

The Bank of America suit mirrors these claims, declaring 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 guise of non-criminal business activities”. The legal action also said Bank of America failed to file mandatory financial alerts.

Attorneys Offer Perspectives on Legal Hurdles

Longtime attorneys who commented on the matter said proving such a case would be challenging. But they also noted possible outcomes which could provide solace to accusers or release of previously hidden details.

Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor who founded 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 survivors, and I want them to get explanations and legal redress and financial recovery,” the attorney said. Some claims might be too tangential from a juridical perspective.

“It all comes down to evidence,” Rahmani said. A lawyer would need to prove causation, which would mean “but for the defendant’s conduct, the harm wouldn’t have occurred”. In this case, that would translate to “absent the institution’s involvement, the victim maybe wouldn’t have been trafficked”, Rahmani explained.

A lawyer would also have to go further than a “but for” measure. “Is not just ‘but for’ causation. It also has to be a significant element: that is the legal test. So whatever misconduct there was, if there was any wrongdoing … the defendant’s misconduct has to have been a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff harm.

“By engaging in a business relationship with Epstein, is that a substantial factor? It’s uncertain.”

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

“It represents a reputational disaster,” Rahmani noted. If the financial institutions try to get these suits dismissed and are unsuccessful, the attorney expects a swift settlement. “No one wants to go litigate any of the legal matters tied to Epstein.”

Attorney Eric Faddis, a trial attorney and principal of the legal practice Varner Faddis and former prosecutor, said corporations can be responsible. In this situation, “if the institutions bear fault is going to depend, in part, on what the banks knew, whether they had any knowledge of claimed misconduct or criminal wrongdoing”, and somehow offered support to Epstein.

“But even then, I think it’s going to be hard to effectively connect the financial entities into some kind of trafficking operation. The banks would likely not be aware of the particulars of claims,” the lawyer said. While the financier’s prior legal case was public, “it’s not illegal for a bank to have a client who’s an unsavory person”.

“However, it is unlawful for a bank to somehow be involved in the criminal activity of a customer, but those two issues are very different, and so I think that it’s going to be a tough lawsuit against the institutions.”

Potential Benefits for Survivors

Nevertheless, key elements of the litigation could assist those affected by Epstein.

“These cases may uncover additional details about the ongoing Epstein saga,” the attorney said. “Even though there have been obstacles erected at every turn for folks seeking this data, when there’s a legal action, there’s a discovery process, and that discovery process often mandates release of materials that was not previously public.”

Edwards said in a comment 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 Jeffrey Epstein – as well as for potential targets who will be harmed from comparable criminal networks – if our banks are not made responsible for the essential role each performs, either in supplying the required framework for the illegal operation or identifying the monetary aspect of these offenses and stopping it.

Edwards continued: “We have a far better chance of effecting meaningful change than lawmakers, because we know the details and background of the matter and are not motivated by politics 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 political agenda and thus cannot be deterred by shutdowns, 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 statement: “While legislators attempt to uncover how Jeffrey Epstein was able to conduct his criminal sex-trafficking enterprise for decades without detection, we are taking a further significant action forward toward legal resolution for survivors.”

Bank Responses

When requested for a statement on the lawsuit, BNY 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.”