🔗 Share this article

For years, survivors of the late financier Jeffrey Epstein have demanded justice. For a while, it appeared 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 involvement in the deceased billionaire’s exploitation of underage females – and given to two decades behind bars.

Meanwhile, financial firms that had worked with Epstein, while not accepting fault, paid hundreds of millions in agreements to victims. Former President Trump even made disclosing the Epstein investigative files part of his election promises, and doubled down on his commitment to do so early this year.

In the end, the administration’s Department of Justice did not make public these files, and his administration has become embroiled 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 – irrespective of their result.

Lawsuits Target Major Banks

These lawsuits, filed by an unnamed accuser against Bank of America and the BNY Mellon, allege that these financial powerhouses unlawfully facilitated Epstein’s trafficking ring. The suits are led by Sigrid S McCawley, of Boies Schiller Flexner, and lawyer Brad Edwards of Edwards Henderson, who have consistently advocated for Epstein victims.

“The financier carried out these offenses 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 the bank,” one lawsuit states. “Egregiously, BNY had a abundance of knowledge regarding Epstein’s sex trafficking operation but opted for financial gain over safeguarding those harmed.”

The complaint against Bank of America 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 international sex trafficking organization under the pretext of non-criminal business activities”. The suit also said the bank failed to file suspicious activity reports.

Legal Experts Offer Perspectives on Legal Hurdles

Longtime attorneys who commented on the situation said establishing liability would be challenging. But they also noted potential results which could provide solace to accusers or release of previously hidden details.

Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor who established West Coast Trial lawyers, 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 clearly I am on the side of the survivors, and I want them to get answers and criminal justice and financial recovery,” 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 “but for the defendant’s conduct, the harm wouldn’t have happened”. In this instance, that would translate to “absent the institution’s involvement, the survivor maybe wouldn’t have been trafficked”, the lawyer explained.

An attorney would also have to go further than a basic causation test. “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 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 relationships 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 thrown out and are unsuccessful, the attorney expects a swift settlement. “No one wants to go litigate any of the Epstein-related cases.”

Eric Faddis, a litigator and founder of the Colorado law firm his firm and ex-government lawyer, said companies can be responsible. In this situation, “whether the banks have liability is going to hinge, in part, on their level of awareness, whether they had any knowledge of alleged abuse or criminal wrongdoing”, and in some way provided assistance to Epstein.

“But even then, I think it’s going to be difficult to effectively connect the banks into some kind of sex-trafficking scheme. The banks would probably not be privy to the details of claims,” 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”.

“It is illegal for a financial firm to in any way be involved 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 banks.”

Possible Advantages for Survivors

Nevertheless, key elements of the litigation could assist Epstein survivors.

“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 individuals seeking this data, when there’s a lawsuit, there’s a evidence-gathering phase, and that discovery process often requires disclosure of information that was not previously public.”

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

“The lawsuits are necessary for complete justice for the survivors of the financier – as well as for potential targets who will suffer from comparable criminal networks – if our financial institutions are not held accountable for the crucial part each plays, either in providing the necessary infrastructure for the criminal enterprise or identifying the monetary aspect of these offenses and stopping it.

Edwards continued: “We have a far better chance of making a real difference than lawmakers, because we know the details and background of the case and are not driven by partisan interests but rather by a sincere intention to create substantial impact and to safeguard the survivors, who have already suffered tremendously.

“Our handling of these issues without any partisan motives and thus will not be swayed by obstructions, protecting wealthy politically connected individuals, or the other embarrassing partisan gamesmanship you and the rest of the world have had to watch unfold recently.”

McCawley said in a declaration: “As Congress works toward unraveling how Jeffrey Epstein was able to conduct his criminal sex-trafficking enterprise for many years without detection, we are taking another important step forward toward legal resolution for survivors.”

Bank Responses

When requested for a statement on the legal complaint, BNY said: “The allegations in the case are baseless, and we will strongly contest against it.”

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