🔗 Share this article

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

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

At the same time, financial firms that had done business with Epstein, although not admitting wrongdoing, paid substantial sums in settlements to survivors. Donald Trump even made releasing the Epstein investigative files part of his campaign platform, and doubled down on his commitment to do so early this year.

Ultimately, Trump’s justice department did not release these records, and his government has become embroiled in reports about personal connections between him and Epstein. Assurances from lawmakers to release files have lagged, due to partisan maneuvering and justice department foot-dragging.

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

Lawsuits Target Leading Financial Institutions

The legal complaints, filed by an anonymous plaintiff against a major U.S. bank and the BNY Mellon, claim that these banking giants illicitly enabled Epstein’s sex trafficking. The suits are led by Sigrid S McCawley, of a prominent law firm, and lawyer Brad Edwards of his legal practice, who have long represented Epstein victims.

“Epstein committed these crimes by means of not only his own vast fortune and influence, but through financial backing and monetary assistance from both individuals and organizations, including the bank,” the legal filing claims. “Egregiously, the institution had a abundance of knowledge regarding Epstein’s trafficking network but chose profit over protecting the victims.”

The complaint against Bank of America echoes these allegations, declaring the institution “knowingly provided the monetary resources and the veneer of institutional legitimacy for Epstein and his co-conspirators to fuel their international sex trafficking organization under the pretext of legal commercial dealings”. The suit also said Bank of America neglected to file suspicious activity reports.

Legal Experts Offer Perspectives on Legal Hurdles

Longtime attorneys who commented on the situation said proving such a case would be difficult. But they also identified possible outcomes which could provide solace to plaintiffs or release of long-sought information.

Attorney Neama Rahmani, a ex-government lawyer who founded 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 clearly I am on the side of the survivors, and I want them to get answers and legal redress and compensation,” Rahmani said. Certain allegations might be too tangential from a legal standpoint.

“The case hinges on proof,” he said. A lawyer would need to prove cause and effect, which would mean “if not for the bank’s actions, the harm wouldn’t have happened”. In this instance, that would translate to “but for the bank’s conduct, the survivor maybe wouldn’t have been trafficked”, Rahmani clarified.

An attorney would also have to go beyond a “but for” measure. “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 wrongdoing … the defendant’s misconduct has to have been a substantial factor in leading to the victim’s suffering.

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

Regardless of legal responsibility, such lawsuits could serve as a warning that relationships with those accused of wrongdoing can have damaging implications for them.

“It represents a reputational disaster,” Rahmani noted. If the banks try to get these suits dismissed and fail, Rahmani anticipates a swift settlement. “No one wants to go litigate any of the Epstein-related cases.”

Attorney Eric Faddis, a trial attorney and founder of the legal practice Varner Faddis and former prosecutor, said corporations can be responsible. In this scenario, “whether the banks have liability is going to hinge, in part, on what the banks knew, 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 sort of loop the financial entities into some kind of sex-trafficking scheme. The institutions would probably not be aware of the particulars of claims,” the lawyer said. While Epstein’s Florida conviction was known, “it’s not illegal for a bank to have a client who’s an disreputable individual”.

“However, it is unlawful for a bank to somehow be complicit in the criminal activity of a client, but these aspects are distinct, and so I think that it’s going to be a difficult case against the institutions.”

Possible Advantages for Survivors

Nevertheless, key elements of the legal proceedings could assist Epstein survivors.

“These cases may uncover additional details about the ongoing Epstein saga,” Faddis said. “Even though there have been sort of walls put up at every turn for individuals pursuing this information, when there’s a lawsuit, there’s a evidence-gathering phase, and that discovery process often mandates disclosure of materials that was not previously public.”

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

“The lawsuits are necessary for complete justice for the survivors of Jeffrey Epstein – as well as for future would-be victims who will be harmed from comparable criminal networks – if our financial institutions are not made responsible for the essential role each performs, either in providing the necessary infrastructure for the illegal operation or recognizing the monetary aspect of these crimes and stopping it.

He added: “We have a far better chance of making a real difference than lawmakers, because we know the facts and background of the matter and are not driven by partisan interests but rather by a sincere intention to make a real difference and to protect the survivors, who have already endured immense pain.

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

Attorney Sigrid McCawley said in a declaration: “As Congress works toward unraveling how the financier was able to conduct his criminal sex-trafficking enterprise for many years without being caught, we are taking another important step forward toward justice for victims.”

Institutional Reactions

When requested for a statement on the legal complaint, BNY said: “The allegations in the case are baseless, and we will vigorously defend against it.”

Bank of America’s statement likewise stated: “We will vigorously defend ourselves in this case.”