🔗 Share this article

Over many years, survivors of the late financier Jeffrey Epstein have demanded justice. At one point, 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 role in the late financier’s sexual abuse of teen girls – and sentenced to two decades behind bars.

Meanwhile, financial firms that had worked with Epstein, while not admitting wrongdoing, agreed to pay hundreds of millions in agreements 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 in recent months.

In the end, the administration’s Department of Justice did not release these files, and his administration has become involved in allegations about personal connections between him and Epstein. Assurances from lawmakers to release files have lagged, due to partisan maneuvering and delays from federal authorities.

But recent legal actions could provide clarity on Epstein’s activities amid the deadlock – regardless of their result.

Lawsuits Aim at Leading Financial Institutions

The legal complaints, submitted by an anonymous plaintiff against a major U.S. bank and the Bank of New York Mellon (BNY), allege that these banking giants unlawfully facilitated Epstein’s sex trafficking. The suits are led by attorney Sigrid McCawley, of Boies Schiller Flexner, and 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 vast fortune and influence, but through access to funding and monetary assistance from both private parties and organizations, including BNY,” the legal filing claims. “Shockingly, BNY had a abundance of knowledge regarding Epstein’s sex trafficking operation but chose profit over safeguarding those harmed.”

The complaint against Bank of America mirrors these claims, declaring the institution “deliberately supplied 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 legal action also said the bank neglected to file suspicious activity reports.

Legal Experts Offer Perspectives on Legal Hurdles

Experienced lawyers who commented on the situation said establishing liability would be difficult. But they also identified potential results which could offer comfort to plaintiffs or release of long-sought information.

Attorney Neama Rahmani, a ex-government lawyer who established a legal firm, said evidence 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 legal redress and financial recovery,” the attorney said. Some claims might be not directly related from a legal standpoint.

“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 instance, that would translate to “but for the bank’s conduct, the victim maybe wouldn’t have been exploited”, Rahmani clarified.

A lawyer would also have to go beyond a “but for” measure. “Is not just ‘but for’ causation. 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 causing the victim’s suffering.

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

Regardless of legal responsibility, suits like this could put institutions on notice that relationships with those involved in alleged crimes can have negative consequences for them.

“It’s a PR nightmare,” he said. If the banks try to get these suits dismissed and are unsuccessful, the attorney anticipates a quick resolution. “No one wants to go litigate any of the Epstein-related cases.”

Eric Faddis, a trial attorney and founder of the legal practice his firm and ex-government lawyer, said companies can be liable. In this scenario, “whether the banks have liability 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 banks would likely not be aware of the details of allegations,” the lawyer said. While Epstein’s Florida conviction was public, “it’s not illegal for a financial institution to have a customer who’s an unsavory person”.

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

Possible Advantages for Victims

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

“The lawsuits have the potential to reveal more information about the continuing Epstein story,” the attorney said. “Despite the fact that there have been obstacles erected at every turn for individuals seeking this information, when there’s a legal action, there’s a evidence-gathering phase, and that legal procedure often requires release of information that was not previously public.”

Edwards said in a comment that the lawsuits could have a deterrent effect and achieve what legislators have failed to do.

“Legal actions are essential for full accountability for the victims of the financier – as well as for future would-be victims who will suffer from similar trafficking organizations – if our financial institutions are not held accountable for the essential role each performs, either in supplying the required framework for the illegal operation or identifying the financial component of these crimes and putting an end to it.

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

“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 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 decades without detection, we are taking another important step forward toward legal resolution 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.”

The bank’s response similarly remarked: “We intend to firmly protect our interests in this case.”