🔗 Share this article

Over many years, survivors of the late financier Jeffrey Epstein have demanded justice. At one point, it appeared like they would get it.

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

Meanwhile, financial firms that had worked with Epstein, although not admitting wrongdoing, paid substantial sums in settlements to survivors. Former President Trump even made disclosing the Epstein investigative files part of his campaign platform, and reiterated on his promise to do so early this year.

In the end, the administration’s Department of Justice did not release these files, and his administration has become embroiled in reports about social ties between him and Epstein. Congressional promises to disclose documents have lagged, due to political jockeying and justice department foot-dragging.

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

Lawsuits Target Leading Financial Institutions

The legal complaints, submitted by an anonymous plaintiff against Bank of America and the BNY Mellon, claim that these financial powerhouses unlawfully facilitated Epstein’s sex trafficking. The cases are led by attorney Sigrid McCawley, of a prominent law firm, and lawyer 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 power, but through access to funding and financial support from both individuals and institutions, including BNY,” the legal filing claims. “Shockingly, BNY had a abundance of knowledge regarding Epstein’s sex trafficking operation but chose profit over protecting the victims.”

The complaint against Bank of America echoes these allegations, declaring the institution “deliberately supplied the monetary resources and the veneer of institutional legitimacy for Epstein and his accomplices to support their international sex trafficking organization under the guise of non-criminal business activities”. The suit also said the bank failed to file suspicious activity reports.

Legal Experts Offer Perspectives on Case Challenges

Experienced lawyers who commented on the matter said establishing liability would be difficult. But they also identified possible outcomes which could offer comfort to plaintiffs or release of previously hidden details.

Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor 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. Some claims might be too tangential from a legal standpoint.

“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 harm wouldn’t have happened”. In this instance, that would boil down to “absent the institution’s involvement, the survivor maybe wouldn’t have been exploited”, the lawyer clarified.

An attorney would also have to go beyond a basic causation test. “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 plaintiff harm.

“By engaging in a business relationship with Epstein, is that a substantial factor? I don’t know.”

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

“It’s a PR nightmare,” he said. If the financial institutions try to get these suits thrown out and are unsuccessful, the attorney expects 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 scenario, “whether the banks have liability is going to hinge, in part, on their level of awareness, if they were informed of claimed misconduct or illegal acts”, and somehow provided assistance to Epstein.

“However, even in that case, I think it’s going to be hard to effectively connect the financial entities into some kind of trafficking operation. The institutions would likely not be aware of the particulars of claims,” the lawyer said. While the financier’s prior legal case was known, “it’s not illegal for a financial institution to have a client who’s an unsavory person”.

“It is illegal for a financial firm 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 difficult case against the institutions.”

Possible Advantages for Victims

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

“The lawsuits have the potential to reveal more information about the continuing Epstein story,” the attorney said. “Despite the fact that there have been sort of walls put up at every turn for folks pursuing this information, when there’s a lawsuit, there’s a evidence-gathering phase, and that discovery process often requires disclosure of materials that was not formerly available.”

Edwards said in a statement that the suits could have a deterrent effect and achieve what lawmakers have been unable to do.

“Legal actions are essential for full accountability for the victims of the financier – as well as for future would-be victims who will suffer from comparable criminal networks – if our financial institutions are not held accountable for the essential role each plays, either in supplying the required framework for the criminal enterprise or identifying the financial component of these offenses and putting an end to it.

He added: “Our prospects are significantly higher of making a real difference than lawmakers, because we understand the details and history of the case and are not motivated by politics but rather by a sincere intention to create substantial impact and to safeguard the victims, who have already endured immense pain.

“Our handling of these issues without any political agenda and thus cannot be deterred by shutdowns, protecting wealthy politically connected individuals, or the other shameful political maneuvering you and the rest of the world have had to watch unfold recently.”

Attorney Sigrid McCawley said in a statement: “As Congress works toward unraveling how Jeffrey Epstein was able to conduct his criminal sex-trafficking enterprise for decades without detection, we are taking a further significant action forward toward justice for victims.”

Institutional Reactions

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 likewise stated: “We will vigorously defend ourselves in this matter.”