🔗 Share this article

Over many years, victims of Jeffrey Epstein have sought accountability. At one point, it appeared like they would achieve it.

Epstein’s former associate 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 underage females – and sentenced to two decades behind bars.

Meanwhile, financial firms that had done business with Epstein, while not accepting fault, paid substantial sums in settlements to survivors. Donald Trump even made releasing the documents related to the Epstein probe part of his election promises, and reiterated 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 allegations about personal connections between him and Epstein. Assurances from lawmakers to disclose documents have lagged, due to political jockeying and justice department foot-dragging.

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

Legal Actions Target Major Banks

The legal complaints, submitted by an unnamed accuser against Bank of America and the Bank of New York Mellon (BNY), claim that these banking giants unlawfully facilitated Epstein’s trafficking ring. The suits are led by attorney Sigrid McCawley, of a prominent law firm, and lawyer Brad Edwards of Edwards Henderson, who have long represented survivors of Epstein’s abuse.

“The financier carried out these offenses by means of not only his own extraordinary wealth and influence, but through access to funding and monetary assistance from both individuals and institutions, including the bank,” one lawsuit states. “Egregiously, BNY had a plethora of information regarding Epstein’s sex trafficking operation but opted for financial gain over safeguarding those harmed.”

The Bank of America suit echoes these allegations, 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 pretext of non-criminal business activities”. The legal action also said Bank of America failed to file mandatory financial alerts.

Attorneys Weigh In on Legal Hurdles

Experienced lawyers who spoke to the situation said establishing liability would be challenging. But they also noted potential results which could provide solace to accusers or disclosure of previously hidden details.

Attorney Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor who established a legal firm, said proof has to show that an bank’s conduct resulted in 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 financial recovery,” Rahmani said. Certain allegations might be too tangential from a juridical perspective.

“It all comes down to evidence,” he said. A attorney would need to prove cause and effect, which would mean “if not for the bank’s actions, the harm wouldn’t have occurred”. In this case, that would boil down to “absent the institution’s involvement, the survivor maybe wouldn’t have been exploited”, Rahmani explained.

A lawyer 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 bank’s actions has to have been a key contributor in causing the plaintiff harm.

“By engaging in a business relationship with Epstein, is that a substantial factor? It’s uncertain.”

Liability aside, suits like this could put institutions on notice that associations with those accused of wrongdoing can have damaging implications for them.

“It represents a reputational disaster,” he said. If the financial institutions try to get these cases thrown out and are unsuccessful, the attorney anticipates a quick resolution. “No party desires to pursue any of the Epstein-related cases.”

Attorney Eric Faddis, a trial attorney and principal of the Colorado law firm Varner Faddis and former prosecutor, said corporations can be responsible. In this situation, “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 somehow provided assistance to Epstein.

“But even then, I think it’s going to be difficult to sort of loop the banks into some kind of sex-trafficking scheme. The institutions would probably not be privy to the details of claims,” the lawyer said. While the financier’s prior legal case was public, “it’s not illegal for a bank to have a client who’s an unsavory person”.

“However, it is unlawful 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.”

Possible Advantages for Victims

Nevertheless, key elements of the legal proceedings could help those affected by Epstein.

“These cases may uncover additional details about the continuing Epstein story,” Faddis said. “Even though there have been sort of walls put up at every turn for individuals seeking this data, when there’s a lawsuit, there’s a evidence-gathering phase, and that discovery process often mandates disclosure of information that was not previously public.”

Edwards said in a comment that the suits could have a preventive impact and achieve what legislators have been unable to do.

“Legal actions are essential for full accountability for the victims of Jeffrey Epstein – as well as for future would-be victims who will be harmed from similar trafficking organizations – if our financial institutions are not held accountable for the essential role each performs, either in providing the necessary infrastructure for the criminal enterprise or identifying the monetary aspect of these crimes and stopping it.

He added: “We have a far better chance of effecting meaningful change than lawmakers, because we understand the details and background of the matter and are not driven 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 cannot be deterred by obstructions, protecting wealthy politically connected individuals, or the other shameful political maneuvering you and the rest of the world have had to watch unfold recently.”

Attorney Sigrid McCawley said in a statement: “As Congress works toward unraveling how Jeffrey Epstein was able to orchestrate his criminal sex-trafficking enterprise for decades without detection, we are taking a further significant action forward toward justice 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 similarly remarked: “We will vigorously defend ourselves in this matter.”