🔗 Share this article

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

Ghislaine Maxwell, the financier’s one-time partner, was found guilty of human trafficking in a 2021 trial for her involvement in the late financier’s exploitation of underage females – and given to two decades behind bars.

At the same time, banks that had worked with Epstein, while not accepting fault, agreed to pay substantial sums in settlements to survivors. Former President Trump even made releasing the documents related to the Epstein probe part of his election promises, and reiterated on his commitment to do so early this year.

Ultimately, the administration’s Department of Justice did not release these records, and his government has become involved in allegations about social ties between him and Epstein. Assurances from lawmakers to disclose documents have lagged, due to partisan maneuvering and delays from federal authorities.

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

Legal Actions Target Leading Financial Institutions

These lawsuits, filed by an unnamed accuser against a major U.S. bank and the BNY Mellon, claim that these banking giants illicitly enabled Epstein’s trafficking ring. The suits are helmed by attorney Sigrid McCawley, of a prominent law firm, and lawyer Brad Edwards of his legal practice, who have consistently advocated for Epstein victims.

“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 institutions, including BNY,” the legal filing states. “Egregiously, the institution had a abundance of knowledge regarding Epstein’s trafficking network but chose profit over safeguarding those harmed.”

The complaint against Bank of America mirrors these claims, declaring the institution “knowingly provided the financial support and the appearance of respectability for Epstein and his accomplices to support their global trafficking enterprise under the pretext of legal commercial dealings”. The suit also said the bank neglected 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 possible outcomes which could provide solace to plaintiffs or disclosure of previously hidden details.

Neama Rahmani, a ex-government lawyer who founded a legal firm, said proof has to show that an institution’s actions resulted in harm.

“I don’t think the lawsuit has much of a chance of success – and obviously I am on the side of the survivors, and I want them to get answers and criminal justice and compensation,” the attorney said. Certain allegations might be not directly related from a juridical perspective.

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

A lawyer would also have to go beyond a “but for” measure. “Is not just ‘but for’ causation. It also has to be a significant element: that is the legal test. So any improper behavior there was, if there was any misconduct … the bank’s actions has to have been a key contributor in causing the victim’s suffering.

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

Regardless of legal responsibility, such lawsuits could put institutions on notice that relationships 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 cases thrown out and fail, Rahmani anticipates a swift settlement. “No one wants to go litigate any of the Epstein-related cases.”

Attorney Eric Faddis, a trial attorney and principal of the legal practice Varner Faddis and former prosecutor, said companies can be liable. In this scenario, “whether the banks have liability is going to depend, in part, on their level of awareness, if they were informed of alleged abuse or criminal wrongdoing”, and in some way offered support to Epstein.

“However, even in that case, I think it’s going to be hard to sort of loop the financial entities into some kind of sex-trafficking scheme. The banks would probably not be privy to the details of allegations,” the lawyer said. While the financier’s prior legal case was known, “there’s no law against 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 criminal activity of a client, but these aspects are distinct, 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 litigation could help those affected by Epstein.

“These cases may uncover additional details about the ongoing Epstein saga,” the attorney said. “Even though there have been obstacles erected at every turn for folks pursuing this data, when there’s a lawsuit, there’s a evidence-gathering phase, and that legal procedure often mandates disclosure of materials that was not formerly available.”

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 Jeffrey Epstein – 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 essential role each performs, either in providing the required framework for the criminal enterprise or recognizing the financial component 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 know the details and history of the matter and are not motivated by partisan interests but rather by a sincere intention to create substantial impact and to protect the victims, who have already endured immense pain.

“We approach these matters without any partisan motives and thus cannot be deterred by shutdowns, protecting wealthy politically connected individuals, or the other embarrassing partisan gamesmanship 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 conduct his illegal trafficking operation for decades without detection, we are taking a further significant action forward toward legal resolution for victims.”

Institutional Reactions

Asked for comment on the legal complaint, the Bank of New York Mellon said: “The claims in the lawsuit are meritless, and we will vigorously defend against it.”

The bank’s response similarly remarked: “We will vigorously defend ourselves in this matter.”