🔗 Share this article

For years, survivors of Jeffrey Epstein have sought accountability. At one point, it appeared like they would get it.

Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s ex-girlfriend, was convicted of sex trafficking four years ago for her role in the late financier’s sexual abuse of teen girls – and sentenced to two decades behind bars.

Meanwhile, banks that had done business with Epstein, although not admitting wrongdoing, paid hundreds of millions in agreements to victims. Former President Trump even made releasing the Epstein investigative files part of his campaign platform, and doubled down on his promise to do so in recent months.

Ultimately, Trump’s justice department did not make public these records, and his government has become embroiled in allegations about social ties between him and Epstein. Congressional promises to disclose documents have stalled, due to political jockeying and justice department foot-dragging.

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

Lawsuits Target Major Banks

These lawsuits, filed by an anonymous plaintiff against a major U.S. bank and the Bank of New York Mellon (BNY), allege that these financial powerhouses illicitly enabled Epstein’s sex trafficking. The suits are helmed by Sigrid S McCawley, of a prominent law firm, and 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 institutions, including BNY,” the legal filing claims. “Egregiously, the institution had a plethora of information regarding Epstein’s trafficking network but opted for financial gain over protecting the victims.”

The Bank of America suit echoes these allegations, 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 pretext of non-criminal business activities”. The legal action also said Bank of America failed to file mandatory financial alerts.

Legal Experts Weigh In on Case Challenges

Experienced lawyers 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 long-sought information.

Attorney Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor who founded a legal firm, said evidence has to show that an institution’s actions led to harm.

“I don’t think the lawsuit has much of a chance of success – and clearly I am on the side of the survivors, and I want them to get answers and legal redress and financial recovery,” Rahmani said. Certain allegations might be not directly related from a juridical perspective.

“The case hinges on proof,” 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 “absent the institution’s involvement, the victim maybe wouldn’t have been trafficked”, the lawyer clarified.

An attorney would also have to go beyond a “but for” measure. “Is not just ‘but for’ causation. 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 causing the victim’s suffering.

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

Regardless of legal responsibility, such lawsuits could put institutions on notice that associations with those involved in alleged crimes can have damaging implications for them.

“It’s a PR nightmare,” he said. If the financial institutions try to get these suits dismissed and fail, the attorney expects 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 legal practice Varner Faddis and former prosecutor, said corporations can be responsible. In this situation, “if the institutions bear fault is going to hinge, in part, on what the banks knew, if they were informed of alleged abuse or criminal wrongdoing”, and somehow offered support to Epstein.

“But even then, I think it’s going to be difficult to effectively connect the financial entities into some kind of sex-trafficking scheme. The institutions would likely not be aware of the particulars of allegations,” Faddis said. While Epstein’s Florida conviction was known, “there’s no law against for a financial institution to have a client who’s an disreputable individual”.

“However, it is unlawful for a financial firm to somehow be involved in the illegal actions of a client, but these aspects are distinct, and so I think that it’s going to be a difficult case against the banks.”

Possible Advantages for Survivors

That said, key elements of the legal proceedings could help Epstein survivors.

“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 pursuing 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 previously public.”

Edwards said in a statement that the lawsuits could have a preventive impact and accomplish what lawmakers 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 suffer from similar trafficking organizations – if our financial institutions are not held accountable for the essential role each performs, either in supplying the required framework for the criminal enterprise or recognizing the financial component of these crimes and putting an end to it.

He added: “Our prospects are significantly higher of making a real difference than Congress, because we understand the details and history of the case 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 will not be swayed by shutdowns, 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: “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 survivors.”

Institutional Reactions

When requested for a statement on the lawsuit, BNY said: “The allegations in the case are baseless, and we will strongly contest against it.”

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