🔗 Share this article

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

Ghislaine Maxwell, the financier’s one-time partner, was convicted of sex trafficking in a 2021 trial for her role in the late financier’s sexual abuse of teen girls – and given to two decades behind bars.

At the same time, banks that had worked with Epstein, although not accepting fault, agreed to pay substantial sums in agreements to survivors. Donald Trump even made disclosing the Epstein investigative files part of his campaign platform, and reiterated on his promise to do so in recent months.

In the end, Trump’s justice department did not release these records, and his government has become embroiled in reports about personal connections between him and Epstein. Assurances from lawmakers to disclose documents have stalled, due to partisan maneuvering and justice department foot-dragging.

But two new lawsuits could shed light on Epstein’s activities amid the deadlock – regardless of their outcome.

Lawsuits Aim at Major Banks

The legal complaints, submitted by an unnamed accuser against a major U.S. bank and the BNY Mellon, allege that these banking giants illicitly enabled Epstein’s trafficking ring. The suits are led by Sigrid S McCawley, of Boies Schiller Flexner, and Brad Edwards of his legal practice, who have consistently advocated for Epstein victims.

“Epstein committed these crimes by means of not only his own extraordinary wealth and influence, but through financial backing and monetary assistance from both individuals and organizations, including the bank,” one lawsuit claims. “Shockingly, BNY had a plethora of information regarding Epstein’s trafficking network but opted for financial gain over protecting the victims.”

The Bank of America suit mirrors these claims, asserting the institution “knowingly provided the financial support and the appearance of respectability for Epstein and his co-conspirators to support their international sex trafficking organization under the guise of legal commercial dealings”. The legal action also said the bank failed to file suspicious activity reports.

Attorneys Offer Perspectives on Legal Hurdles

Longtime attorneys who spoke to the matter said establishing liability would be difficult. But they also noted possible outcomes which could provide solace to accusers or disclosure 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 resulted in harm.

“In my view, the case faces significant obstacles – and clearly I am on the side of the survivors, and I want them to get explanations and criminal justice and compensation,” Rahmani said. Certain allegations might be too tangential from a legal standpoint.

“The case hinges on proof,” Rahmani said. A attorney would need to prove cause and effect, which would mean “but for the defendant’s conduct, the injury wouldn’t have occurred”. In this case, that would translate to “absent the institution’s involvement, the victim maybe wouldn’t have been exploited”, Rahmani clarified.

A lawyer would also have to go further than a “but for” measure. “It’s not solely about indirect cause. It also has to be a significant element: that is the legal test. So any improper behavior there was, if there was any misconduct … the defendant’s misconduct has to have been a key contributor in causing the plaintiff harm.

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

Regardless of legal responsibility, such lawsuits could put institutions on notice that associations with those accused of wrongdoing can have negative consequences for them.

“It’s a PR nightmare,” he said. If the financial institutions try to get these cases thrown out and fail, the attorney anticipates a quick resolution. “No one wants to go litigate any of the legal matters tied to Epstein.”

Eric Faddis, a trial attorney and principal of the legal practice his firm and ex-government lawyer, said corporations can be liable. In this situation, “if the institutions bear fault is going to depend, in part, on what the banks knew, if they were informed of alleged abuse or illegal acts”, and somehow provided assistance to Epstein.

“But even then, I think it’s going to be hard to sort of loop the banks into some kind of trafficking operation. The institutions would probably not be aware of the particulars of claims,” the lawyer said. While Epstein’s Florida conviction was public, “it’s not illegal for a financial institution to have a client who’s an disreputable individual”.

“It is illegal for a bank to somehow be complicit in the illegal actions of a customer, but these aspects are very different, and so I think that it’s going to be a tough lawsuit against the institutions.”

Potential Benefits for Victims

That said, important aspects of the litigation could help Epstein survivors.

“These cases may uncover additional details about the continuing Epstein story,” the attorney said. “Even though there have been sort of walls put up at every turn for folks pursuing this data, when there’s a legal action, there’s a discovery process, and that legal procedure often requires release of materials that was not previously public.”

Edwards said in a statement that the suits could have a deterrent effect and achieve what legislators 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 held accountable for the essential role each plays, either in providing the necessary infrastructure for the criminal enterprise or recognizing the monetary aspect of these crimes and stopping it.

He added: “Our prospects are significantly higher of making a real difference than Congress, because we understand the facts and background of the matter and are not driven by politics but rather by a genuine desire to create substantial impact and to safeguard the survivors, who have already suffered tremendously.

“Our handling of these issues without any political agenda and thus will not be swayed by obstructions, shielding influential figures, or the other shameful political maneuvering you and the rest of the world have had to watch unfold recently.”

McCawley said in a statement: “As Congress works toward unraveling how the financier 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 victims.”

Bank Responses

Asked for comment on the lawsuit, the Bank of New York Mellon said: “The allegations in the case are baseless, and we will vigorously defend against it.”

The bank’s response likewise stated: “We intend to firmly protect our interests in this matter.”