🔗 Share this article

For years, victims of Jeffrey Epstein have demanded justice. For a while, it appeared like they would achieve it.

Epstein’s former associate Ghislaine Maxwell, the financier’s one-time partner, was convicted of human trafficking in a 2021 trial for her involvement in the deceased billionaire’s exploitation of teen girls – and given to 20 years imprisonment.

At the same time, banks that had worked with Epstein, while not admitting wrongdoing, paid substantial sums in settlements to victims. Former President Trump even made disclosing the documents related to the Epstein probe part of his election promises, and doubled down on his promise to do so early this year.

In the end, the administration’s Department of Justice did not release these records, and his government 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 two new lawsuits could shed light on Epstein’s activities amid the stalemate – irrespective of their result.

Lawsuits Aim at Leading Financial Institutions

The legal complaints, submitted by an unnamed accuser against Bank of America and the Bank of New York Mellon (BNY), allege that these banking giants illicitly enabled Epstein’s trafficking ring. The suits are led by attorney Sigrid McCawley, of Boies Schiller Flexner, 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 influence, but through access to funding and monetary assistance from both individuals and institutions, including the bank,” one lawsuit states. “Egregiously, the institution had a abundance of knowledge regarding Epstein’s sex trafficking operation but chose profit over protecting the victims.”

The complaint against Bank of America mirrors these claims, declaring the institution “knowingly provided the financial support and the appearance of respectability for Epstein and his co-conspirators to fuel their global trafficking enterprise under the guise of non-criminal business activities”. The suit also said Bank of America failed to file mandatory financial alerts.

Attorneys Offer Perspectives on Case Challenges

Longtime attorneys who commented on the matter said establishing liability would be difficult. But they also identified possible outcomes which could offer comfort to plaintiffs or disclosure 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 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 victims, and I want them to get explanations and criminal justice and financial recovery,” Rahmani said. Certain allegations might be too tangential from a juridical perspective.

“It all comes down to evidence,” Rahmani said. A lawyer would need to prove cause and effect, which would mean “but for the defendant’s conduct, the injury wouldn’t have happened”. In this instance, that would translate to “but for the bank’s conduct, the victim maybe wouldn’t have been exploited”, the lawyer explained.

An attorney would also have to go further than a “but for” measure. “Is not just ‘but for’ causation. It also has to be a significant element: that is the standard. So any improper behavior there was, if there was any misconduct … the bank’s actions has to have been a substantial factor in leading to the plaintiff harm.

“Through maintaining financial ties to Epstein, is that a substantial factor? I don’t know.”

Liability aside, such lawsuits could serve as a warning 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 are unsuccessful, Rahmani expects a swift settlement. “No party desires to pursue any of the Epstein-related cases.”

Eric Faddis, a trial attorney and principal of the legal practice his firm and former prosecutor, said companies can be responsible. In this situation, “if the institutions bear fault is going to hinge, in part, on their level of awareness, if they were informed of claimed misconduct or illegal acts”, and in some way 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 probably not be aware of the details of claims,” the lawyer 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”.

“It is illegal for a bank to somehow be involved in the criminal activity of a customer, but those two issues are very different, and so I think that it’s going to be a tough lawsuit against the institutions.”

Potential Benefits for Survivors

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

“These cases may uncover additional details about the ongoing Epstein saga,” 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 discovery process, and that discovery process often mandates release of materials that was not formerly available.”

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

“Legal actions are essential for full accountability for the victims of Jeffrey Epstein – as well as for potential targets who will suffer from comparable criminal networks – if our financial institutions are not made responsible for the crucial part each performs, either in supplying the necessary infrastructure for the criminal enterprise or recognizing the monetary aspect of these offenses and stopping it.

He added: “We have a far better chance of making a real difference than lawmakers, 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 survivors, who have already suffered tremendously.

“Our handling of these issues without any partisan motives 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 observe recently.”

Attorney Sigrid McCawley said in a statement: “As Congress works toward unraveling how the financier was able to conduct his illegal trafficking operation for many years without detection, we are taking a further significant action forward toward legal resolution for survivors.”

Bank Responses

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 case.”