🔗 Share this article

For years, survivors of the late financier Jeffrey Epstein have sought justice. At one point, it seemed like they would get it.

Epstein’s former associate Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s ex-girlfriend, was convicted of human trafficking four years ago for her role in the deceased billionaire’s exploitation of underage females – and sentenced to two decades behind bars.

At the same time, banks that had done business with Epstein, although not accepting fault, agreed to pay hundreds of millions in agreements to victims. Donald Trump even made releasing the Epstein investigative files part of his election promises, and reiterated on his promise to do so in recent months.

In the end, the administration’s Department of Justice did not make public these records, and his administration has become embroiled in allegations about social ties between him and Epstein. Assurances from lawmakers to disclose documents have lagged, due to partisan maneuvering and justice department foot-dragging.

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

Lawsuits Aim at Major Banks

The legal complaints, submitted by an unnamed accuser against Bank of America and the Bank of New York Mellon (BNY), 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 long represented survivors of Epstein’s abuse.

“Epstein committed these crimes by means of not only his own extraordinary wealth and power, but through access to funding and financial support from both private parties and organizations, including the bank,” the legal filing states. “Shockingly, the institution had a plethora of information regarding Epstein’s trafficking network but chose profit over protecting the victims.”

The complaint against Bank of America mirrors these claims, asserting the institution “knowingly provided the financial support and the veneer of institutional legitimacy for Epstein and his co-conspirators to fuel their international sex trafficking organization under the pretext of non-criminal business activities”. The legal action also said the bank neglected to file suspicious activity reports.

Attorneys Weigh In on Case Challenges

Longtime attorneys who spoke to the situation said proving such a case would be challenging. But they also identified potential results which could provide solace to accusers or release of long-sought information.

Neama Rahmani, a ex-government lawyer who established West Coast Trial lawyers, said evidence has to show that an bank’s conduct led to harm.

“I don’t think the lawsuit has much of a chance of success – and obviously 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 too tangential from a juridical perspective.

“The case hinges on proof,” he said. A attorney would need to prove cause and effect, which would mean “if not for the bank’s actions, the injury wouldn’t have occurred”. In this case, that would boil down to “absent the institution’s involvement, the survivor maybe wouldn’t have been exploited”, Rahmani 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 whatever misconduct there was, if there was any misconduct … the defendant’s misconduct has to have been a substantial factor in causing the victim’s suffering.

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

Regardless of legal responsibility, suits like this could serve as a warning that relationships with those accused of wrongdoing can have negative consequences for them.

“It represents a reputational disaster,” he said. If the financial institutions try to get these cases dismissed and fail, Rahmani expects a quick resolution. “No party desires to pursue any of the legal matters tied to Epstein.”

Attorney Eric Faddis, a trial attorney and founder of the legal practice Varner Faddis and ex-government lawyer, said companies can be liable. In this scenario, “if the institutions bear fault is going to depend, in part, on their level of awareness, whether they had any knowledge of claimed misconduct or illegal acts”, and somehow offered support to Epstein.

“However, even in that case, I think it’s going to be hard to sort of loop the banks into some kind of sex-trafficking scheme. The banks would likely not be aware of the details of claims,” the lawyer said. While the financier’s prior legal case was known, “it’s not illegal for a bank to have a customer who’s an disreputable individual”.

“However, it is unlawful for a financial firm to in any way be complicit 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, key elements of the legal proceedings 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 pursuing this data, when there’s a lawsuit, there’s a evidence-gathering phase, and that legal procedure often requires disclosure of information that was not previously public.”

Attorney Brad Edwards said in a comment that the lawsuits could have a deterrent effect and achieve what legislators have been unable to do.

“The lawsuits are necessary for complete justice for the survivors of the financier – as well as for future would-be victims who will be harmed from similar trafficking organizations – if our financial institutions are not held accountable for the essential role each plays, either in supplying the necessary infrastructure for the criminal enterprise or recognizing the monetary aspect of these crimes and stopping it.

Edwards continued: “Our prospects are significantly higher of making a real difference than lawmakers, because we understand the details and background of the case and are not motivated by politics but rather by a genuine desire to make a real difference and to safeguard the survivors, who have already suffered tremendously.

“We approach these matters without any political agenda and thus cannot be deterred by shutdowns, shielding influential figures, 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 Jeffrey Epstein was able to orchestrate his illegal trafficking operation for decades without detection, we are taking another important step forward toward justice for victims.”

Institutional Reactions

When requested for a statement on the legal complaint, the Bank of New York Mellon said: “The allegations in the case are baseless, and we will strongly contest against it.”

Bank of America’s statement similarly remarked: “We intend to firmly protect our interests in this case.”