🔗 Share this article

For years, victims of Jeffrey Epstein have demanded justice. At one point, it seemed like they would achieve it.

Epstein’s former associate Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s ex-girlfriend, was found guilty of sex trafficking in a 2021 trial for her involvement in the late financier’s sexual abuse of teen girls – and sentenced to two decades behind bars.

Meanwhile, financial firms that had done business with Epstein, while not admitting wrongdoing, agreed to pay substantial sums in agreements to victims. Former President Trump even made disclosing the documents related to the Epstein probe part of his campaign platform, and reiterated on his promise to do so in recent months.

In the end, Trump’s justice department did not make public these files, and his administration has become embroiled in allegations about personal connections between him and Epstein. Assurances from lawmakers to release files have lagged, due to political jockeying and delays from federal authorities.

But recent legal actions could shed light on Epstein’s activities amid the stalemate – irrespective of their outcome.

Legal Actions Aim at Major Banks

These lawsuits, submitted by an unnamed accuser against Bank of America and the Bank of New York Mellon (BNY), claim that these banking giants illicitly enabled Epstein’s trafficking ring. The suits are led by attorney Sigrid McCawley, of a prominent law firm, and lawyer Brad Edwards of his legal practice, who have long represented survivors of Epstein’s abuse.

“The financier carried out these offenses by means of not only his own extraordinary wealth and influence, but through access to funding and monetary assistance from both private parties and organizations, including the bank,” one lawsuit claims. “Egregiously, BNY had a abundance of knowledge 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 “knowingly provided the financial support and the veneer of institutional legitimacy for Epstein and his accomplices to fuel their international sex trafficking organization under the pretext of non-criminal business activities”. The suit also said the bank neglected to file mandatory financial alerts.

Attorneys Weigh In on Case Challenges

Experienced lawyers who commented on the matter said proving such a case would be challenging. But they also noted possible outcomes which could provide solace to plaintiffs or release of previously hidden details.

Attorney Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor who established a legal firm, said evidence 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 explanations and criminal justice and financial recovery,” Rahmani said. Certain allegations might be not directly related 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 harm wouldn’t have happened”. In this case, that would boil down to “absent the institution’s involvement, the victim maybe wouldn’t have been trafficked”, Rahmani explained.

A lawyer would also have to go beyond a “but for” measure. “Is not just ‘but for’ causation. It also has to be a significant element: that is the legal test. So whatever misconduct there was, if there was any misconduct … the bank’s actions has to have been a substantial factor in leading to the plaintiff harm.

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

Liability aside, suits like this could serve as a warning that associations 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, Rahmani anticipates a swift settlement. “No one wants to go litigate any of the legal matters tied to Epstein.”

Eric Faddis, a litigator and founder of the Colorado law firm his firm and ex-government lawyer, said companies can be liable. In this scenario, “if the institutions bear fault is going to hinge, in part, on their level of awareness, if they were informed of claimed misconduct or criminal wrongdoing”, and somehow provided assistance to Epstein.

“But even then, I think it’s going to be hard to effectively connect the banks into some kind of trafficking operation. The banks would probably not be privy to the particulars of claims,” Faddis said. While the financier’s prior legal case was known, “there’s no law against for a bank to have a client who’s an unsavory person”.

“However, it is unlawful for a bank to in any way be involved in the illegal actions of a customer, but those two issues are very different, and so I think that it’s going to be a difficult case against the banks.”

Potential Benefits for Survivors

Nevertheless, key elements of the litigation could assist Epstein survivors.

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

Edwards said in a comment that the lawsuits could have a deterrent effect and achieve what lawmakers have failed to do.

“The lawsuits are necessary for complete justice for the survivors of Jeffrey Epstein – as well as for potential targets who will suffer from comparable criminal networks – if our banks are not held accountable for the crucial part each performs, either in providing the necessary infrastructure for the illegal operation or recognizing the monetary aspect of these crimes and putting an end to it.

Edwards continued: “We have a far better chance of making a real difference than lawmakers, because we know the facts and history of the matter and are not motivated by partisan interests but rather by a genuine desire to create substantial impact and to protect the victims, who have already suffered tremendously.

“We approach these matters without any political agenda and thus will not be swayed by shutdowns, 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 statement: “As Congress works toward unraveling how Jeffrey Epstein was able to orchestrate his illegal trafficking operation for many years without being caught, we are taking a further significant action forward toward justice for victims.”

Institutional Reactions

Asked for comment on the lawsuit, BNY said: “The claims in the lawsuit are meritless, and we will strongly contest against it.”

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