🔗 Share this article

For years, victims of the late financier Jeffrey Epstein have sought justice. At one point, it seemed like they would achieve it.

Epstein’s former associate Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s ex-girlfriend, was convicted of sex trafficking in a 2021 trial for her role in the late financier’s exploitation of underage females – and given to 20 years imprisonment.

Meanwhile, financial firms that had worked with Epstein, while not accepting fault, paid substantial sums in settlements to survivors. Donald Trump even made releasing the Epstein investigative files part of his election promises, and reiterated on his commitment to do so early this year.

Ultimately, the administration’s Department of Justice did not make public these records, and his administration has become involved in allegations about personal connections between him and Epstein. Congressional promises to release files have stalled, due to political jockeying and delays from federal authorities.

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

Legal Actions 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 unlawfully facilitated Epstein’s sex trafficking. The suits are helmed by Sigrid S McCawley, of Boies Schiller Flexner, and lawyer 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 influence, but through financial backing and monetary assistance from both private parties and organizations, 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, declaring the institution “deliberately supplied the monetary resources and the veneer of institutional legitimacy for Epstein and his co-conspirators to support their international sex trafficking organization under the pretext of legal commercial dealings”. The suit also said the bank failed to file suspicious activity reports.

Legal Experts Offer Perspectives on Legal Hurdles

Longtime attorneys who spoke to the situation said proving such a case would be challenging. But they also identified potential results which could offer comfort to accusers or release of previously hidden details.

Attorney Neama Rahmani, a ex-government lawyer who established a legal firm, said evidence 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 explanations and criminal justice and compensation,” the attorney said. Certain allegations might be not directly related from a legal standpoint.

“The case hinges on proof,” he said. A lawyer would need to prove cause and effect, which would mean “but for the defendant’s conduct, 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 “but for” measure. “Is not just ‘but for’ causation. It also has to be a substantial factor: that is the legal test. So any improper behavior there was, if there was any wrongdoing … the bank’s actions has to have been a key contributor in leading to the plaintiff harm.

“By engaging in a business relationship with Epstein, is that a decisive element? I don’t know.”

Liability aside, such lawsuits could put institutions on notice 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 dismissed and fail, Rahmani anticipates a quick resolution. “No party desires to pursue any of the legal matters tied to Epstein.”

Attorney Eric Faddis, a litigator and founder of the Colorado law firm his firm and ex-government lawyer, said corporations 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.

“However, even in that case, I think it’s going to be hard to effectively connect the financial entities into some kind of sex-trafficking scheme. The banks would probably not be aware of the particulars of claims,” the lawyer said. While Epstein’s Florida conviction was known, “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 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 difficult case against the banks.”

Possible Advantages for Victims

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

“The lawsuits have the potential to reveal more information about the continuing Epstein story,” the attorney said. “Even though there have been obstacles erected at every turn for individuals seeking this information, when there’s a legal action, there’s a evidence-gathering phase, and that discovery process often requires disclosure of information that was not previously public.”

Attorney Brad Edwards said in a statement that the lawsuits could have a preventive impact and accomplish what lawmakers have failed to do.

“Legal actions are essential for full accountability for the victims of the financier – as well as for potential targets who will be harmed from similar trafficking organizations – if our banks are not made responsible for the essential role each performs, either in providing the required framework for the illegal operation or recognizing the financial component of these offenses and stopping it.

He added: “We have a far better chance of making a real difference than lawmakers, because we know the details and history of the matter and are not motivated by partisan interests but rather by a genuine desire to make a real difference and to protect the victims, who have already endured immense pain.

“Our handling of these issues without any political agenda 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.”

Attorney Sigrid McCawley said in a statement: “While legislators attempt to uncover how the financier was able to orchestrate his illegal trafficking operation for decades without detection, we are taking another important step forward toward justice for victims.”

Bank Responses

Asked for comment on the legal complaint, 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.”