🔗 Share this article

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

Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s ex-girlfriend, was convicted of human trafficking four years ago for her involvement in the deceased billionaire’s exploitation of teen girls – and sentenced to two decades behind bars.

At the same time, financial firms that had worked with Epstein, although not admitting wrongdoing, agreed to pay substantial sums in settlements to survivors. Former President Trump even made releasing the Epstein investigative files part of his election promises, and reiterated on his promise to do so in recent months.

In the end, the administration’s Department of Justice did not release these files, and his government has become involved in allegations about social ties between him and Epstein. Congressional promises to disclose documents have lagged, due to political jockeying and delays from federal authorities.

However recent legal actions could provide clarity on Epstein’s operations amid the stalemate – regardless of their outcome.

Lawsuits Aim at Leading Financial Institutions

These lawsuits, submitted by an unnamed accuser against Bank of America and the BNY Mellon, allege that these banking giants illicitly enabled Epstein’s trafficking ring. The suits are helmed by Sigrid S McCawley, of Boies Schiller Flexner, and Brad Edwards of Edwards Henderson, who have consistently advocated for Epstein victims.

“The financier carried out these offenses by means of not only his own vast fortune and influence, but through financial backing and financial support from both private parties and institutions, including the bank,” the legal filing states. “Shockingly, the institution 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 mirrors these claims, asserting the institution “deliberately supplied the monetary resources 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 neglected to file mandatory financial alerts.

Legal Experts Weigh In on Case Challenges

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

Attorney Neama Rahmani, a ex-government lawyer who established West Coast Trial lawyers, said evidence 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 victims, and I want them to get explanations and legal redress and financial recovery,” the attorney said. Some claims might be too tangential from a legal standpoint.

“It all comes down to evidence,” he 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 instance, that would translate to “but for the bank’s conduct, the survivor maybe wouldn’t have been exploited”, Rahmani clarified.

An attorney would also have to go further than a basic causation test. “It’s not solely about indirect cause. It also has to be a substantial factor: that is the standard. So whatever misconduct there was, if there was any misconduct … the bank’s actions has to have been a key contributor in leading to the victim’s suffering.

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

Liability aside, such lawsuits could serve as a warning that associations with those involved in alleged crimes can have damaging implications for them.

“It represents a reputational disaster,” Rahmani noted. If the financial institutions try to get these suits thrown out and fail, the attorney anticipates a swift settlement. “No party desires to pursue any of the Epstein-related cases.”

Attorney Eric Faddis, a trial attorney and founder of the Colorado law firm his firm and ex-government lawyer, said companies can be responsible. In this situation, “if the institutions bear fault is going to depend, in part, on their level of awareness, if they were informed of claimed misconduct or illegal acts”, and somehow provided assistance to Epstein.

“But even then, I think it’s going to be hard to effectively connect the financial entities into some kind of sex-trafficking scheme. The institutions would likely not be aware of the details of claims,” Faddis said. While Epstein’s Florida conviction was known, “it’s not illegal for a bank to have a client who’s an disreputable individual”.

“It is illegal for a bank to in any way be involved in the criminal activity of a customer, but those two issues are distinct, and so I think that it’s going to be a tough lawsuit against the institutions.”

Possible Advantages for Victims

Nevertheless, important aspects of the legal proceedings could help those affected by Epstein.

“The lawsuits have the potential to reveal more information about the ongoing Epstein saga,” Faddis said. “Even though there have been obstacles erected at every turn for individuals seeking this data, when there’s a lawsuit, there’s a evidence-gathering phase, and that legal procedure often requires release of information that was not formerly available.”

Attorney Brad Edwards said in a comment that the suits could have a deterrent effect and achieve what legislators have failed to do.

“The lawsuits are necessary for complete justice for the victims of Jeffrey Epstein – as well as for future would-be victims who will suffer from similar trafficking organizations – if our banks are not made responsible for the essential role each plays, either in supplying the necessary infrastructure for the illegal operation 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 know the details and history of the case and are not driven by politics but rather by a genuine desire to create substantial impact and to protect the survivors, who have already endured immense pain.

“Our handling of these issues without any partisan motives and thus cannot be deterred by shutdowns, shielding influential figures, or the other embarrassing partisan gamesmanship you and the rest of the world have had to watch unfold recently.”

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

Bank Responses

When requested for a statement on the legal complaint, the Bank of New York Mellon said: “The claims in the lawsuit are meritless, and we will vigorously defend against it.”

Bank of America’s statement similarly remarked: “We intend to firmly protect our interests in this matter.”