🔗 Share this article

For years, victims of Jeffrey Epstein have demanded justice. At one point, it appeared like they would get it.

Epstein’s former associate Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s ex-girlfriend, was found guilty of human trafficking in a 2021 trial for her involvement in the deceased billionaire’s sexual abuse of teen girls – and sentenced to 20 years imprisonment.

At the same time, financial firms that had worked with Epstein, although not admitting wrongdoing, agreed to pay substantial sums in agreements to victims. Former President Trump even made releasing the Epstein investigative files part of his election promises, and doubled down on his promise to do so in recent months.

Ultimately, Trump’s justice department did not release these files, and his administration has become involved in reports about social ties between him and Epstein. Assurances from lawmakers to release files have lagged, due to partisan maneuvering and delays from federal authorities.

But recent legal actions could provide clarity on Epstein’s activities amid the stalemate – regardless of their result.

Legal Actions Aim at Major Banks

The legal complaints, filed by an anonymous plaintiff against Bank of America and the Bank of New York Mellon (BNY), allege that these banking giants unlawfully facilitated Epstein’s trafficking ring. The suits are led by Sigrid S McCawley, of Boies Schiller Flexner, and Brad Edwards of Edwards Henderson, who have consistently advocated for survivors of Epstein’s abuse.

“The financier carried out these offenses by means of not only his own vast fortune and influence, but through access to funding and financial support from both private parties and institutions, including BNY,” the legal filing claims. “Egregiously, the institution 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 mirrors these claims, declaring the institution “deliberately supplied the financial support and the appearance of respectability for Epstein and his accomplices to fuel their international sex trafficking organization under the pretext of legal commercial dealings”. The suit also said the bank neglected to file mandatory financial alerts.

Legal Experts Offer Perspectives on Legal Hurdles

Experienced lawyers who spoke to the matter said proving such a case would be challenging. But they also noted possible outcomes which could offer comfort to accusers or disclosure of previously hidden details.

Attorney Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor who established 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 obviously I am on the side of the victims, and I want them to get answers and legal redress and financial recovery,” the attorney said. Certain allegations might be not directly related from a legal standpoint.

“The case hinges on proof,” he said. A lawyer 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 translate to “but for the bank’s conduct, the victim maybe wouldn’t have been trafficked”, Rahmani clarified.

An attorney would also have to go beyond a basic causation test. “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 wrongdoing … the bank’s actions has to have been a key contributor in causing the victim’s suffering.

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

Regardless of legal responsibility, such lawsuits could put institutions on notice that associations with those involved in alleged crimes can have negative consequences for them.

“It represents a reputational disaster,” Rahmani noted. If the banks try to get these cases thrown out and are unsuccessful, the attorney expects 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 former prosecutor, said companies can be responsible. In this scenario, “whether the banks have liability is going to hinge, in part, on what the banks knew, 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 difficult to sort of loop the banks into some kind of trafficking operation. The institutions would probably not be privy to the particulars of claims,” Faddis said. While Epstein’s Florida conviction was known, “it’s not illegal for a financial institution to have a client who’s an unsavory person”.

“However, it is unlawful for a financial firm to somehow be involved in the illegal actions of a customer, 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 Survivors

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

“The lawsuits have the potential to reveal more information about the continuing Epstein story,” Faddis said. “Even though there have been obstacles erected at every turn for individuals pursuing this information, 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 lawsuits could have a deterrent effect 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 potential targets who will suffer from similar trafficking organizations – if our financial institutions are not held accountable for the crucial part each performs, either in supplying the necessary infrastructure for the criminal enterprise or recognizing the monetary aspect of these crimes and putting an end to it.

He added: “Our prospects are significantly higher of making a real difference than Congress, because we know the facts and background of the matter and are not motivated by partisan interests but rather by a genuine desire to create substantial impact and to safeguard 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 watch unfold recently.”

McCawley said in a declaration: “As Congress works toward unraveling how Jeffrey Epstein was able to conduct his illegal trafficking operation for many years without detection, we are taking a further significant action forward toward justice for victims.”

Institutional Reactions

When requested for a statement on the legal complaint, the Bank of New York Mellon said: “The claims in the lawsuit are meritless, and we will strongly contest against it.”

Bank of America’s statement likewise stated: “We will vigorously defend ourselves in this case.”