🔗 Share this article

Over many years, survivors of Jeffrey Epstein have demanded justice. For a while, it seemed like they would achieve it.

Ghislaine Maxwell, the financier’s one-time partner, was convicted of human trafficking four years ago for her involvement in the deceased billionaire’s exploitation of underage females – and sentenced to 20 years imprisonment.

Meanwhile, banks that had done business with Epstein, while not admitting wrongdoing, paid substantial sums in settlements to victims. Former President Trump even made disclosing the Epstein investigative files part of his election promises, and doubled down on his promise to do so early this year.

In the end, the administration’s Department of Justice did not make public these records, and his administration has become embroiled in reports about personal connections between him and Epstein. Assurances from lawmakers to release files have stalled, due to partisan maneuvering and delays from federal authorities.

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

Lawsuits Target Leading Financial Institutions

These lawsuits, filed by an unnamed accuser against a major U.S. bank and the Bank of New York Mellon (BNY), allege that these banking giants unlawfully facilitated Epstein’s sex trafficking. The cases are helmed by Sigrid S McCawley, of Boies Schiller Flexner, and lawyer Brad Edwards of his legal practice, who have long represented survivors of Epstein’s abuse.

“Epstein committed these crimes by means of not only his own extraordinary wealth and power, but through financial backing and monetary assistance from both private parties and institutions, including BNY,” the legal filing claims. “Egregiously, the institution had a plethora of information regarding Epstein’s sex trafficking operation but opted for financial gain over protecting the victims.”

The complaint against Bank of America echoes these allegations, asserting the institution “deliberately supplied the monetary resources and the appearance of respectability for Epstein and his co-conspirators to fuel their international sex trafficking organization under the guise of legal commercial dealings”. The legal action also said the bank neglected to file mandatory financial alerts.

Legal Experts Weigh In on Case Challenges

Experienced lawyers who spoke to the matter said establishing liability would be difficult. But they also noted potential results which could provide solace to accusers or release of long-sought information.

Attorney Neama Rahmani, a ex-government lawyer who founded a legal firm, said proof has to show that an institution’s actions 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 financial recovery,” Rahmani said. Certain allegations might be too tangential from a juridical perspective.

“The case hinges on proof,” he said. A lawyer would need to prove causation, which would mean “but for the defendant’s conduct, the harm wouldn’t have happened”. 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 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.

“Through maintaining financial ties to Epstein, is that a decisive element? It’s uncertain.”

Regardless of legal responsibility, suits like this could serve as a warning that associations 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 are unsuccessful, the attorney expects a quick resolution. “No one wants to go litigate any of the legal matters tied to Epstein.”

Attorney Eric Faddis, a litigator and principal of the Colorado law firm Varner Faddis and ex-government lawyer, said companies can be liable. In this situation, “if the institutions bear fault is going to hinge, in part, on their level of awareness, 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 difficult to effectively connect the banks into some kind of sex-trafficking scheme. The banks would probably not be aware of the particulars of allegations,” Faddis said. While the financier’s prior legal case was public, “it’s not illegal for a financial institution to have a customer who’s an disreputable individual”.

“It is illegal for a financial firm to in any way 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 difficult case against the banks.”

Possible Advantages for Victims

That said, important aspects of the litigation could help 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 individuals pursuing this information, when there’s a lawsuit, there’s a discovery process, and that discovery process often requires disclosure of information 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 failed to do.

“The lawsuits are necessary for complete justice for the victims of the financier – as well as for potential targets who will be harmed from similar trafficking organizations – if our financial institutions are not made responsible for the crucial part each performs, either in supplying the necessary infrastructure for the criminal enterprise or identifying the financial component of these crimes and putting an end to it.

He added: “We have a far better chance of effecting meaningful change than lawmakers, because we know the facts and history of the case and are not driven by politics but rather by a sincere intention 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 obstructions, protecting wealthy politically connected individuals, or the other shameful political maneuvering you and the rest of the world have had to observe recently.”

McCawley said in a declaration: “While legislators attempt to uncover how the financier was able to orchestrate his illegal trafficking operation for decades without detection, we are taking a further significant action forward toward legal resolution for survivors.”

Institutional Reactions

Asked for comment on the legal complaint, the Bank of New York Mellon said: “The claims in the lawsuit are meritless, and we will strongly contest against it.”

Bank of America’s statement similarly remarked: “We will vigorously defend ourselves in this matter.”