🔗 Share this article

Over many years, survivors of the late financier Jeffrey Epstein have sought accountability. At one point, it appeared 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 deceased billionaire’s exploitation of underage females – and sentenced to 20 years imprisonment.

At the same time, financial firms that had worked with Epstein, although not accepting fault, paid hundreds of millions in settlements to victims. Former President Trump even made releasing the documents related to the Epstein probe part of his election promises, and doubled down on his promise to do so in recent months.

Ultimately, the administration’s Department of Justice did not release these records, and his government has become involved in allegations about social ties between him and Epstein. Congressional promises to release files have stalled, due to political jockeying and justice department foot-dragging.

But two new lawsuits could shed light on Epstein’s operations amid the deadlock – irrespective of their outcome.

Legal Actions Aim at Major Banks

These lawsuits, filed by an unnamed accuser against a major U.S. bank and the BNY Mellon, allege that these financial powerhouses illicitly enabled Epstein’s trafficking ring. The cases are led by attorney Sigrid McCawley, of Boies Schiller Flexner, 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 extraordinary wealth and influence, but through financial backing and financial support from both individuals and institutions, including the bank,” 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, declaring the institution “deliberately supplied the monetary resources and the veneer of institutional legitimacy for Epstein and his co-conspirators to fuel their international sex trafficking organization under the guise of legal commercial dealings”. The suit also said Bank of America neglected to file mandatory financial alerts.

Legal Experts Weigh In on Legal Hurdles

Experienced lawyers who spoke to the matter said proving such a case would be challenging. But they also identified possible outcomes which could offer comfort to accusers or release of previously hidden details.

Attorney Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor 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 survivors, and I want them to get answers and legal redress and compensation,” the attorney said. Some claims might be not directly related from a juridical perspective.

“It all comes down to evidence,” 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 exploited”, the lawyer explained.

A lawyer would also have to go beyond a basic causation test. “It’s not solely about indirect cause. It also has to be a substantial factor: 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.”

Regardless of legal responsibility, 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,” Rahmani noted. If the banks try to get these suits dismissed and are unsuccessful, the attorney anticipates a swift settlement. “No one wants to go litigate any of the Epstein-related cases.”

Eric Faddis, a litigator and principal of the Colorado law firm Varner Faddis and former prosecutor, said companies can be responsible. In this scenario, “whether the banks have liability is going to depend, in part, on what the banks knew, if they were informed of alleged abuse or criminal wrongdoing”, and in some way offered support 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 institutions would likely not be privy to the details of claims,” Faddis said. While the financier’s prior legal case was public, “there’s no law against for a financial institution to have a customer who’s an unsavory person”.

“However, it is unlawful for a bank to somehow be involved in the illegal actions of a customer, but these aspects are distinct, and so I think that it’s going to be a tough lawsuit against the banks.”

Potential Benefits for Survivors

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

“These cases may uncover additional details about the continuing Epstein story,” Faddis said. “Despite the fact that there have been obstacles erected at every turn for folks seeking this data, when there’s a legal action, there’s a evidence-gathering phase, and that discovery process often requires disclosure of materials that was not previously public.”

Attorney Brad Edwards said in a statement that the suits could have a preventive impact and achieve what legislators 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 comparable criminal networks – if our banks are not made responsible for the crucial part each performs, either in supplying the necessary infrastructure for the criminal enterprise or recognizing the financial component of these offenses and stopping it.

Edwards continued: “Our prospects are significantly higher of making a real difference than Congress, because we know the facts and history of the matter and are not driven by politics but rather by a genuine desire to create substantial impact and to safeguard the survivors, who have already endured immense pain.

“We approach these matters without any political agenda and thus cannot be deterred by obstructions, shielding influential figures, or the other embarrassing partisan gamesmanship you and the rest of the world have had to observe recently.”

McCawley said in a declaration: “While legislators attempt to uncover 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

Asked for comment 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.”