🔗 Share this article

Over many years, survivors 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, Epstein’s ex-girlfriend, was found guilty of human trafficking four years ago for her role in the late financier’s sexual abuse of underage females – and sentenced to 20 years imprisonment.

Meanwhile, financial firms that had worked with Epstein, although not admitting wrongdoing, paid substantial sums in agreements to victims. Former President Trump even made releasing the Epstein investigative files part of his campaign platform, and reiterated on his commitment to do so in recent months.

Ultimately, the administration’s Department of Justice did not release these files, and his administration has become embroiled in allegations about personal connections between him and Epstein. Congressional promises to disclose documents have stalled, due to political jockeying and justice department foot-dragging.

But recent legal actions could provide clarity on Epstein’s operations amid the deadlock – irrespective of their result.

Lawsuits Target Leading Financial Institutions

These lawsuits, submitted by an anonymous plaintiff against a major U.S. bank and the Bank of New York Mellon (BNY), allege that these banking giants illicitly enabled Epstein’s trafficking ring. The suits are led by Sigrid S McCawley, of a prominent law firm, and Brad Edwards of Edwards Henderson, who have long represented Epstein victims.

“The financier carried out these offenses by means of not only his own vast fortune and power, but through access to funding and monetary assistance from both individuals and organizations, including BNY,” one lawsuit states. “Shockingly, the institution had a abundance of knowledge regarding Epstein’s sex trafficking operation but chose profit over safeguarding those harmed.”

The Bank of America suit mirrors these claims, asserting the institution “deliberately supplied the financial support and the appearance of respectability for Epstein and his co-conspirators to support their international sex trafficking organization under the pretext 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 spoke to the situation said establishing liability would be difficult. But they also identified potential results which could provide solace to accusers or release of long-sought information.

Neama Rahmani, a ex-government lawyer who founded a legal firm, said proof has to show that an institution’s actions resulted in harm.

“I don’t think the lawsuit has much of a chance of success – 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 juridical perspective.

“The case hinges on proof,” Rahmani said. A attorney would need to prove causation, which would mean “if not for the bank’s actions, the injury wouldn’t have occurred”. In this case, that would translate to “absent the institution’s involvement, the survivor maybe wouldn’t have been trafficked”, the lawyer clarified.

A lawyer would also have to go beyond 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 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 decisive element? It’s uncertain.”

Liability aside, such lawsuits could serve as a warning that relationships with those involved in alleged crimes can have negative consequences for them.

“It represents a reputational disaster,” Rahmani noted. If the financial institutions try to get these cases dismissed and fail, Rahmani expects a quick resolution. “No one wants to go litigate any of the Epstein-related cases.”

Eric Faddis, a litigator and founder of the legal practice Varner Faddis and ex-government lawyer, said companies can be responsible. In this scenario, “whether the banks have liability is going to hinge, in part, on what the banks knew, whether they had any knowledge of alleged abuse or criminal wrongdoing”, and somehow offered support to Epstein.

“But even then, I think it’s going to be difficult to sort of loop the financial entities into some kind of sex-trafficking scheme. The banks would likely not be aware of the particulars of allegations,” the lawyer said. While Epstein’s Florida conviction was known, “it’s not illegal for a financial institution to have a client who’s an unsavory person”.

“It is illegal for a bank to somehow be complicit in the illegal actions of a client, but those two issues are very different, and so I think that it’s going to be a difficult case against the institutions.”

Potential Benefits for Victims

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

“The lawsuits have the potential to reveal more information about the ongoing Epstein saga,” 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 discovery process, and that discovery process often mandates disclosure of materials that was not formerly available.”

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

“The lawsuits are necessary for complete justice for the survivors 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 necessary infrastructure for the illegal operation or recognizing the monetary aspect of these offenses and putting an end to it.

He added: “We have a far better chance of making a real difference than Congress, because we understand the facts and history of the case and are not driven by partisan interests but rather by a genuine desire to make a real difference and to safeguard the victims, who have already endured immense pain.

“We approach these matters without any political agenda and thus cannot be deterred by obstructions, protecting wealthy politically connected individuals, or the other embarrassing partisan gamesmanship you and the rest of the world have had to watch unfold recently.”

Attorney Sigrid McCawley said in a declaration: “As Congress works toward unraveling how Jeffrey Epstein was able to orchestrate 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, the Bank of New York Mellon said: “The claims in the lawsuit are meritless, and we will strongly contest against it.”

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