🔗 Share this article

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

Epstein’s former associate Ghislaine Maxwell, the financier’s one-time partner, was found guilty of human trafficking in a 2021 trial for her role in the deceased billionaire’s sexual abuse of underage females – and sentenced to 20 years imprisonment.

Meanwhile, financial firms that had done business with Epstein, while 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 promise to do so in recent months.

In the end, Trump’s justice department did not release these records, and his government has become involved in allegations about personal connections between him and Epstein. Assurances from lawmakers to disclose documents have stalled, due to political jockeying and justice department foot-dragging.

However recent legal actions could provide clarity on Epstein’s activities amid the stalemate – irrespective of their outcome.

Legal Actions Target Major Banks

The legal complaints, filed by an anonymous plaintiff against a major U.S. bank and the Bank of New York Mellon (BNY), allege that these financial powerhouses illicitly enabled Epstein’s trafficking ring. The suits are helmed by attorney Sigrid McCawley, of Boies Schiller Flexner, and lawyer Brad Edwards of Edwards Henderson, who have consistently advocated for survivors of Epstein’s abuse.

“The financier carried out these offenses by means of not only his own vast fortune and influence, but through financial backing and financial support from both private parties and organizations, including the bank,” one lawsuit states. “Egregiously, the institution had a plethora of information regarding Epstein’s trafficking network but opted for financial gain over protecting the victims.”

The Bank of America suit echoes these allegations, asserting the institution “deliberately supplied the monetary resources and the veneer of institutional legitimacy for Epstein and his accomplices to fuel their global trafficking enterprise under the guise of legal commercial dealings”. The legal action also said the bank failed to file mandatory financial alerts.

Attorneys Offer Perspectives on Case Challenges

Longtime attorneys who commented on the matter said establishing liability would be challenging. But they also noted potential results which could offer comfort to plaintiffs or release of previously hidden details.

Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor who founded West Coast Trial lawyers, 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 victims, and I want them to get answers and legal redress and compensation,” the attorney said. Some claims might be too tangential from a juridical perspective.

“It all comes down to evidence,” he said. A lawyer would need to prove causation, which would mean “but for the defendant’s conduct, the harm wouldn’t have occurred”. In this instance, that would boil down to “absent the institution’s involvement, the survivor maybe wouldn’t have been trafficked”, Rahmani explained.

An attorney would also have to go further than a “but for” measure. “Is not just ‘but for’ causation. It also has to be a significant element: that is the standard. So whatever misconduct there was, if there was any wrongdoing … the bank’s actions 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.”

Regardless of legal responsibility, such lawsuits could serve as a warning that relationships with those involved in alleged crimes can have damaging implications for them.

“It represents a reputational disaster,” he said. If the banks try to get these cases dismissed and fail, the attorney expects a quick resolution. “No party desires to pursue any of the legal matters tied to Epstein.”

Eric Faddis, a trial attorney and principal of the Colorado law firm his firm and former prosecutor, said companies can be responsible. In this scenario, “if the institutions bear fault is going to depend, in part, on what the banks knew, 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 difficult to sort of loop the financial entities into some kind of sex-trafficking scheme. The institutions would likely not be aware of the details of allegations,” the lawyer said. While Epstein’s Florida conviction was known, “it’s not illegal for a bank to have a client who’s an unsavory person”.

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

Potential Benefits for Victims

That said, key elements of the litigation could help those affected by Epstein.

“The lawsuits have the potential to reveal more information about the continuing Epstein story,” Faddis 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 lawsuit, there’s a discovery process, and that legal procedure often mandates disclosure of materials that was not previously public.”

Attorney Brad Edwards said in a comment that the lawsuits could have a deterrent effect and accomplish what lawmakers have been unable to do.

“Legal actions are essential for full accountability for the victims of Jeffrey Epstein – as well as for potential targets who will suffer from comparable criminal networks – if our banks are not made responsible for the essential role each performs, either in providing the required framework for the illegal operation or recognizing the monetary aspect of these crimes and putting an end to it.

Edwards continued: “We have a far better chance of making a real difference than Congress, because we understand the facts and history of the case and are not driven by partisan interests but rather by a sincere intention to make a real difference and to safeguard the victims, who have already suffered tremendously.

“We approach these matters without any political agenda and thus will not be swayed by shutdowns, shielding influential figures, or the other shameful political maneuvering you and the rest of the world have had to watch unfold 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 justice for survivors.”

Institutional Reactions

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

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