🔗 Share this article

For years, survivors of Jeffrey Epstein have sought accountability. At one point, it appeared like they would achieve it.

Epstein’s former associate Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s ex-girlfriend, was found guilty of sex trafficking in a 2021 trial for her involvement in the late financier’s sexual abuse of underage females – and sentenced to 20 years imprisonment.

Meanwhile, financial firms that had done business with Epstein, although not admitting wrongdoing, paid hundreds of millions in agreements to survivors. Former President Trump even made disclosing the Epstein investigative files part of his campaign platform, and doubled down on his commitment to do so early this year.

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

However two new lawsuits could provide clarity on Epstein’s operations amid the stalemate – regardless of their result.

Lawsuits Aim at Leading Financial Institutions

These lawsuits, submitted by an unnamed accuser against a major U.S. bank and the Bank of New York Mellon (BNY), claim that these financial powerhouses illicitly enabled Epstein’s sex trafficking. The suits are led by Sigrid S McCawley, of a prominent law firm, and lawyer Brad Edwards of Edwards Henderson, who have consistently advocated for survivors of Epstein’s abuse.

“Epstein committed these crimes by means of not only his own vast fortune and power, but through access to funding and monetary assistance from both private parties and organizations, including BNY,” one lawsuit states. “Egregiously, the institution had a plethora of information regarding Epstein’s sex trafficking operation but opted for financial gain over protecting the victims.”

The complaint against Bank of America mirrors these claims, declaring the institution “knowingly provided the monetary resources and the appearance of respectability for Epstein and his accomplices to fuel their international sex trafficking organization 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

Longtime attorneys who commented on the situation said proving such a case would be challenging. But they also identified potential results which could offer comfort to accusers or disclosure of long-sought information.

Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor who founded 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 survivors, and I want them to get explanations and criminal justice and compensation,” Rahmani said. Certain allegations might be too tangential from a legal standpoint.

“The case hinges on proof,” he said. A lawyer 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 “but for the bank’s conduct, the victim maybe wouldn’t have been exploited”, Rahmani 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 legal test. So whatever misconduct there was, if there was any wrongdoing … the defendant’s misconduct has to have been a substantial factor in leading to 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 serve as a warning that associations with those involved in alleged crimes can have damaging implications for them.

“It represents a reputational disaster,” Rahmani noted. If the banks try to get these cases thrown out and are unsuccessful, Rahmani anticipates a swift settlement. “No party desires to pursue any of the legal matters tied to Epstein.”

Attorney Eric Faddis, a litigator and principal of the legal practice Varner Faddis and ex-government lawyer, said corporations can be responsible. In this scenario, “if the institutions bear fault is going to depend, in part, on their level of awareness, whether they had any knowledge of claimed misconduct or criminal wrongdoing”, and in some way provided assistance to Epstein.

“However, even in that case, I think it’s going to be difficult to effectively connect 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 Epstein’s Florida conviction was public, “there’s no law against for a financial institution to have a customer who’s an disreputable individual”.

“However, it is unlawful for a financial firm to in any way be complicit in the criminal activity of a customer, but these aspects are distinct, and so I think that it’s going to be a difficult case against the banks.”

Possible Advantages for Victims

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

“These cases may uncover additional details about the ongoing Epstein saga,” Faddis said. “Even though there have been sort of walls put up at every turn for individuals seeking this data, when there’s a legal action, there’s a evidence-gathering phase, and that legal procedure often requires disclosure of information that was not formerly available.”

Attorney Brad Edwards said in a statement that the suits could have a preventive impact and achieve what lawmakers have failed to do.

“Legal actions are essential for full accountability for the victims of Jeffrey Epstein – as well as for potential targets who will be harmed from comparable criminal networks – if our financial institutions are not held accountable for the crucial part each plays, either in supplying the required framework for the illegal operation or recognizing the financial component of these offenses and stopping it.

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

“We approach these matters without any political agenda and thus will not be swayed by shutdowns, shielding influential figures, 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 decades without being caught, we are taking another important step forward toward legal resolution for victims.”

Institutional Reactions

When requested for a statement on the lawsuit, BNY said: “The allegations in the case are baseless, and we will vigorously defend against it.”

The bank’s response likewise stated: “We will vigorously defend ourselves in this case.”