🔗 Share this article

Over many years, survivors of Jeffrey Epstein have sought justice. For a while, it seemed like they would get it.

Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s ex-girlfriend, was found guilty of human trafficking in a 2021 trial for her involvement in the deceased billionaire’s sexual abuse of underage females – and sentenced to two decades behind bars.

Meanwhile, financial firms that had done business with Epstein, although not admitting wrongdoing, paid hundreds of millions in settlements to victims. Former President Trump even made disclosing the Epstein investigative files part of his election promises, and reiterated on his commitment to do so early this year.

Ultimately, the administration’s Department of Justice did not release these files, and his government has become embroiled in allegations about personal connections between him and Epstein. Assurances from lawmakers to release files have stalled, due to political jockeying and delays from federal authorities.

However two new lawsuits could provide clarity on Epstein’s activities amid the deadlock – irrespective of their result.

Legal Actions Aim at Leading Financial Institutions

The legal complaints, filed by an unnamed accuser against a major U.S. bank and the Bank of New York Mellon (BNY), claim that these banking giants unlawfully facilitated Epstein’s trafficking ring. The cases are led by Sigrid S McCawley, of a prominent law firm, and lawyer 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 power, but through access to funding and monetary assistance from both individuals and institutions, including the bank,” the legal filing states. “Shockingly, BNY had a abundance of knowledge regarding Epstein’s trafficking network but opted for financial gain over protecting the victims.”

The complaint against Bank of America 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 global trafficking enterprise under the pretext of non-criminal business activities”. The legal action also said Bank of America failed to file suspicious activity reports.

Attorneys Weigh In on Case Challenges

Longtime attorneys who spoke to the matter said proving such a case would be difficult. But they also identified possible outcomes which could offer comfort to accusers or disclosure of long-sought information.

Attorney Neama Rahmani, a ex-government lawyer who established West Coast Trial lawyers, 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 survivors, and I want them to get answers and legal redress and compensation,” Rahmani said. Certain allegations might be too tangential from a juridical perspective.

“The case hinges on proof,” he said. A attorney would need to prove causation, which would mean “if not for the bank’s actions, the injury wouldn’t have occurred”. In this case, that would translate to “absent the institution’s involvement, the victim maybe wouldn’t have been exploited”, the lawyer 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 bank’s actions 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? It’s uncertain.”

Regardless of legal responsibility, such lawsuits could put institutions on notice that relationships with those involved in alleged crimes can have damaging implications 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 legal matters tied to Epstein.”

Eric Faddis, a trial attorney and principal of the legal practice his firm and ex-government lawyer, said companies can be responsible. In this situation, “if the institutions bear fault is going to depend, in part, on their level of awareness, if they were informed of alleged abuse or criminal wrongdoing”, and somehow provided assistance to Epstein.

“However, even in that case, I think it’s going to be difficult to sort of loop the financial entities into some kind of trafficking operation. The institutions would likely not be aware of the particulars of allegations,” the lawyer said. While Epstein’s Florida conviction was known, “it’s not illegal for a bank to have a customer who’s an disreputable individual”.

“It is illegal for a bank to in any way be complicit in the illegal actions of a client, but these aspects are distinct, and so I think that it’s going to be a difficult case against the institutions.”

Potential Benefits for Survivors

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

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

Attorney Brad Edwards said in a comment that the lawsuits 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 the financier – as well as for potential targets who will be harmed from comparable criminal networks – if our financial institutions are not held accountable for the crucial part each performs, either in supplying the necessary infrastructure for the criminal enterprise or identifying the monetary aspect of these offenses and stopping it.

He added: “Our prospects are significantly higher of making a real difference than Congress, because we know the facts and background of the matter and are not motivated by partisan interests but rather by a sincere intention to create substantial impact and to protect the survivors, who have already endured immense pain.

“We approach these matters without any political agenda and thus will not be swayed by obstructions, shielding influential figures, or the other shameful political maneuvering you and the rest of the world have had to observe recently.”

McCawley said in a statement: “As Congress works toward unraveling how Jeffrey Epstein was able to conduct his criminal sex-trafficking enterprise for many years without detection, we are taking another important step forward toward legal resolution for victims.”

Institutional Reactions

Asked for comment on the legal complaint, the Bank of New York Mellon said: “The allegations in the case are baseless, and we will vigorously defend against it.”

Bank of America’s statement similarly remarked: “We will vigorously defend ourselves in this matter.”