🔗 Share this article

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

Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s ex-girlfriend, was convicted of sex trafficking in a 2021 trial for her role in the deceased billionaire’s exploitation of underage females – and given to two decades behind bars.

Meanwhile, banks that had worked with Epstein, while not admitting wrongdoing, agreed to pay substantial sums in agreements to survivors. Donald Trump even made releasing the Epstein investigative files part of his campaign platform, and reiterated on his commitment to do so early this year.

In the end, Trump’s justice department did not release these files, and his government has become involved in allegations about personal connections between him and Epstein. Congressional promises to release files have lagged, due to partisan maneuvering and delays from federal authorities.

But two new lawsuits could provide clarity on Epstein’s operations amid the deadlock – irrespective of their result.

Legal Actions Target Major Banks

These lawsuits, submitted by an unnamed accuser against a major U.S. bank and the BNY Mellon, allege that these banking giants unlawfully facilitated Epstein’s sex trafficking. The suits are helmed by Sigrid S McCawley, of Boies Schiller Flexner, and 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 monetary assistance from both private parties and institutions, including the bank,” the legal filing claims. “Egregiously, BNY had a abundance of knowledge regarding Epstein’s sex trafficking operation but opted for financial gain over protecting the victims.”

The Bank of America suit mirrors these claims, declaring the institution “deliberately supplied the monetary resources and the veneer of institutional legitimacy for Epstein and his accomplices to support their global trafficking enterprise under the guise of non-criminal business activities”. The suit also said the bank neglected to file mandatory financial alerts.

Legal Experts Weigh In on Case Challenges

Longtime attorneys who spoke to the situation said proving such a case would be challenging. But they also identified potential results which could provide solace to accusers or release of long-sought information.

Attorney Neama Rahmani, a ex-government lawyer who founded a legal firm, 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 survivors, and I want them to get explanations and legal redress and compensation,” Rahmani said. Certain allegations might be not directly related from a legal standpoint.

“It all comes down to evidence,” Rahmani said. A lawyer would need to prove cause and effect, which would mean “but for the defendant’s conduct, the harm wouldn’t have occurred”. In this case, that would translate to “but for the bank’s conduct, the victim maybe wouldn’t have been trafficked”, the lawyer explained.

A lawyer would also have to go beyond a “but for” measure. “It’s not solely about indirect cause. It also has to be a substantial factor: that is the legal test. So whatever misconduct there was, if there was any misconduct … the bank’s actions has to have been a substantial factor in leading to the victim’s suffering.

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

Liability aside, such lawsuits 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 banks try to get these suits dismissed and are unsuccessful, the attorney anticipates a swift settlement. “No one wants to go litigate any of the legal matters tied to Epstein.”

Eric Faddis, a trial attorney and founder of the legal practice Varner Faddis and former prosecutor, said companies can be responsible. In this situation, “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 effectively connect the banks into some kind of trafficking operation. The banks would likely not be aware of the particulars of claims,” the lawyer said. While Epstein’s Florida conviction was known, “there’s no law against for a financial institution to have a client who’s an unsavory person”.

“It is illegal for a bank to in any way be involved in the illegal actions of a client, but those two issues are distinct, and so I think that it’s going to be a tough lawsuit against the institutions.”

Potential Benefits for Victims

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,” Faddis said. “Despite the fact that there have been sort of walls put up at every turn for folks seeking this data, when there’s a lawsuit, there’s a discovery process, and that discovery process often requires release of information that was not previously public.”

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

“The lawsuits are necessary for complete justice for the victims of the financier – as well as for potential targets who will suffer from similar trafficking organizations – if our banks are not held accountable for the crucial part each plays, either in supplying the required framework for the illegal operation or identifying the financial component 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 history 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 suffered tremendously.

“Our handling of these issues without any political agenda and thus will not be swayed by obstructions, shielding influential figures, or the other shameful political maneuvering you and the rest of the world have had to observe recently.”

Attorney Sigrid McCawley said in a statement: “While legislators attempt to uncover how Jeffrey Epstein was able to conduct his criminal sex-trafficking enterprise for many years without being caught, we are taking another important step forward toward justice for victims.”

Institutional Reactions

Asked for comment on the lawsuit, BNY said: “The allegations in the case are baseless, and we will strongly contest against it.”

Bank of America’s statement similarly remarked: “We intend to firmly protect our interests in this matter.”