🔗 Share this article

For years, victims of the late financier Jeffrey Epstein have demanded accountability. At one point, it seemed like they would achieve it.

Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s ex-girlfriend, was found guilty of sex trafficking four years ago for her role in the late financier’s sexual abuse of underage females – and sentenced to 20 years imprisonment.

At the same time, financial firms that had worked 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 campaign platform, 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 government has become involved in reports about social ties between him and Epstein. Assurances from lawmakers to disclose documents have stalled, due to partisan maneuvering and justice department foot-dragging.

But two new lawsuits could shed light on Epstein’s operations amid the deadlock – irrespective of their outcome.

Lawsuits Aim at Major Banks

These lawsuits, submitted by an anonymous plaintiff against Bank of America and the Bank of New York Mellon (BNY), claim that these financial powerhouses unlawfully facilitated Epstein’s trafficking ring. The suits 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 extraordinary wealth and power, but through financial backing and monetary assistance from both private parties and institutions, including the bank,” one lawsuit claims. “Shockingly, BNY had a plethora of information 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 “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 legal commercial dealings”. The suit also said the bank failed to file mandatory financial alerts.

Legal Experts Offer Perspectives on Case Challenges

Experienced lawyers who commented on the situation said establishing liability would be challenging. But they also noted potential results which could provide solace to accusers or release of long-sought information.

Attorney Neama Rahmani, a ex-government lawyer who established West Coast Trial lawyers, said evidence has to show that an institution’s actions resulted in 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 explanations and criminal justice and financial recovery,” the attorney said. Some claims might be too tangential from a legal standpoint.

“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 harm wouldn’t have happened”. In this case, that would boil down to “absent the institution’s involvement, the survivor maybe wouldn’t have been exploited”, the lawyer explained.

A lawyer would also have to go further than a “but for” measure. “Is not just ‘but for’ causation. 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 key contributor in causing the plaintiff harm.

“Through maintaining financial ties to Epstein, is that a substantial factor? It’s uncertain.”

Liability aside, suits like this could serve as a warning that associations 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 thrown out and are unsuccessful, Rahmani expects a quick resolution. “No party desires to pursue any of the Epstein-related cases.”

Attorney Eric Faddis, a litigator and principal of the Colorado law firm Varner Faddis and ex-government lawyer, said companies can be liable. In this situation, “whether the banks have liability is going to hinge, in part, on their level of awareness, if they were informed of alleged abuse or illegal acts”, and in some way provided assistance to Epstein.

“But even then, 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 privy to the details of claims,” the lawyer said. While Epstein’s Florida conviction was known, “it’s not illegal for a bank to have a customer who’s an unsavory person”.

“However, it is unlawful for a bank to somehow be involved in the illegal actions 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 banks.”

Potential Benefits for Survivors

That said, key elements of the legal proceedings could assist those affected by Epstein.

“The lawsuits have the potential to reveal more information about the ongoing Epstein saga,” the attorney said. “Despite the fact that there have been sort of walls put up at every turn for folks seeking this information, when there’s a legal action, there’s a discovery process, and that legal procedure often requires disclosure of information that was not previously public.”

Edwards said in a statement that the suits could have a preventive impact and accomplish what legislators have failed 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 suffer from comparable criminal networks – if our financial institutions are not held accountable for the crucial part each plays, either in providing the required framework for the criminal enterprise or recognizing the monetary aspect of these crimes and putting an end to it.

Edwards continued: “We have a far better chance of effecting meaningful change than Congress, because we understand the facts and background of the case and are not motivated by partisan interests but rather by a sincere intention to make a real difference and to safeguard the survivors, who have already endured immense pain.

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

McCawley said in a declaration: “While legislators attempt to uncover how Jeffrey Epstein was able to conduct his illegal trafficking operation for many years without detection, we are taking another important step forward toward legal resolution for survivors.”

Bank Responses

When requested for a statement on the lawsuit, 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 likewise stated: “We will vigorously defend ourselves in this matter.”