🔗 Share this article

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

Ghislaine Maxwell, the financier’s one-time partner, was convicted of human trafficking in a 2021 trial for her involvement in the late financier’s sexual abuse of teen girls – and given to two decades behind bars.

At the same time, financial firms that had done business with Epstein, while not admitting wrongdoing, 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 doubled down on his promise to do so in recent months.

Ultimately, Trump’s justice department did not make public these records, and his administration has become embroiled in reports about social ties between him and Epstein. Congressional promises to disclose documents have lagged, due to political jockeying and delays from federal authorities.

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

Legal Actions Target Leading Financial Institutions

The legal complaints, submitted by an anonymous plaintiff against a major U.S. bank and the BNY Mellon, allege that these banking giants illicitly enabled Epstein’s trafficking ring. The cases are helmed by attorney Sigrid McCawley, of Boies Schiller Flexner, and Brad Edwards of his legal practice, who have consistently advocated for Epstein victims.

“Epstein committed these crimes by means of not only his own extraordinary wealth and power, but through financial backing and financial support from both individuals and institutions, including BNY,” the legal filing states. “Shockingly, BNY had a plethora of information regarding Epstein’s trafficking network but opted for financial gain over safeguarding those harmed.”

The Bank of America suit echoes these allegations, asserting the institution “knowingly provided the financial support and the veneer of institutional legitimacy for Epstein and his co-conspirators to support their international sex trafficking organization under the guise of legal commercial dealings”. The legal action also said the bank neglected to file mandatory financial alerts.

Legal Experts Offer Perspectives on Case Challenges

Longtime attorneys who commented on the situation said establishing liability would be challenging. But they also noted possible outcomes which could offer comfort to plaintiffs or disclosure of previously hidden details.

Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor who established a legal firm, 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 victims, and I want them to get explanations and criminal justice and financial recovery,” Rahmani said. Certain allegations might be not directly related from a legal standpoint.

“It all comes down to evidence,” he said. A lawyer would need to prove causation, which would mean “if not for the bank’s actions, the injury wouldn’t have happened”. In this case, that would translate to “absent the institution’s involvement, the victim maybe wouldn’t have been exploited”, the lawyer explained.

An attorney would also have to go further than a “but for” measure. “It’s not solely about indirect cause. It also has to be a significant element: that is the standard. So any improper behavior there was, if there was any wrongdoing … the defendant’s misconduct has to have been a key contributor in leading to the plaintiff harm.

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

Liability aside, suits like this could put institutions on notice that associations with those involved in alleged crimes can have negative consequences for them.

“It’s a PR nightmare,” Rahmani noted. If the financial institutions try to get these suits thrown out and fail, Rahmani anticipates a swift settlement. “No party desires to pursue any of the Epstein-related cases.”

Attorney Eric Faddis, a litigator and founder of the Colorado law firm Varner Faddis and ex-government lawyer, said corporations can be liable. In this situation, “whether the banks have liability is going to hinge, in part, on what the banks knew, whether they had any knowledge of claimed misconduct or criminal wrongdoing”, and in some way offered support to Epstein.

“However, even in that case, I think it’s going to be difficult to effectively connect the financial entities into some kind of trafficking operation. The banks would probably 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 financial institution to have a customer who’s an unsavory person”.

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

Potential Benefits for Victims

Nevertheless, important aspects of the legal proceedings could help Epstein survivors.

“The lawsuits have the potential to reveal more information about the ongoing Epstein saga,” Faddis said. “Despite the fact that there have been obstacles erected at every turn for individuals pursuing this information, when there’s a legal action, there’s a evidence-gathering phase, and that discovery process often mandates disclosure of materials that was not formerly available.”

Attorney Brad Edwards said in a statement that the lawsuits could have a preventive impact and accomplish what legislators have failed to do.

“Legal actions are essential for full accountability for the victims of the financier – as well as for potential targets who will suffer from comparable criminal networks – if our banks are not held accountable for the crucial part each plays, either in supplying the necessary infrastructure for the criminal enterprise or recognizing the financial component of these offenses and putting an end to it.

He added: “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 partisan interests but rather by a genuine desire to create substantial impact and to safeguard the survivors, who have already suffered tremendously.

“Our handling of these issues without any political agenda and thus will not be swayed by obstructions, protecting wealthy politically connected individuals, or the other embarrassing partisan gamesmanship you and the rest of the world have had to watch unfold recently.”

McCawley said in a statement: “While legislators attempt to uncover how the financier was able to orchestrate his criminal sex-trafficking enterprise for many years without detection, we are taking a further significant action forward toward legal resolution for survivors.”

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 vigorously defend against it.”

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