🔗 Share this article

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

Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s ex-girlfriend, was found guilty of sex trafficking in a 2021 trial for her involvement in the deceased billionaire’s exploitation of underage females – and sentenced 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 documents related to the Epstein probe part of his election promises, and reiterated 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 embroiled in allegations about personal connections between him and Epstein. Congressional promises to disclose documents have stalled, due to political jockeying and justice department foot-dragging.

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

Lawsuits Aim at Major Banks

The legal complaints, submitted by an unnamed accuser against a major U.S. bank and the BNY Mellon, allege that these banking giants illicitly enabled 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 long represented Epstein victims.

“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 individuals and organizations, including the bank,” the legal filing states. “Egregiously, BNY had a abundance of knowledge regarding Epstein’s sex trafficking operation but chose profit over safeguarding those harmed.”

The Bank of America suit echoes these allegations, declaring the institution “deliberately supplied the monetary resources and the appearance of respectability for Epstein and his co-conspirators to fuel their global trafficking enterprise under the pretext of legal commercial dealings”. The legal action also said the bank neglected to file mandatory financial alerts.

Attorneys Offer Perspectives on Case Challenges

Longtime attorneys who spoke to the situation said proving such a case would be difficult. 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 founded West Coast Trial lawyers, said proof has to show that an institution’s actions led to harm.

“In my view, the case faces significant obstacles – and obviously I am on the side of the victims, and I want them to get answers and legal redress and financial recovery,” Rahmani said. Some claims might be too tangential from a legal standpoint.

“It all comes down to evidence,” he said. A lawyer would need to prove causation, which would mean “if not for the bank’s actions, the injury 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 trafficked”, Rahmani explained.

A lawyer would also have to go beyond a basic causation test. “Is not just ‘but for’ causation. It also has to be a substantial factor: that is the legal test. So any improper behavior there was, if there was any misconduct … the defendant’s misconduct has to have been a substantial factor in leading to the plaintiff harm.

“Through maintaining financial ties to Epstein, is that a decisive element? I don’t know.”

Liability aside, such lawsuits could serve as a warning that relationships 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 dismissed and fail, the attorney expects a swift settlement. “No party desires to pursue any of the Epstein-related cases.”

Eric Faddis, a trial attorney and principal of the legal practice Varner Faddis and former prosecutor, said companies can be liable. In this scenario, “if the institutions bear fault is going to depend, in part, on what the banks knew, if they were informed of claimed misconduct or criminal wrongdoing”, and in some way offered support to Epstein.

“But even then, 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 allegations,” 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”.

“However, it is unlawful for a financial firm to in any way be involved in the illegal actions of a customer, but those two issues are very different, and so I think that it’s going to be a tough lawsuit against the institutions.”

Possible Advantages for Survivors

That said, key elements of the legal proceedings could assist 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 seeking this information, when there’s a lawsuit, there’s a evidence-gathering phase, and that legal procedure often mandates release of materials that was not previously public.”

Edwards said in a comment that the suits could have a deterrent effect and accomplish what legislators have failed 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 comparable criminal networks – if our banks are not made responsible for the crucial part each performs, either in providing the required framework for the criminal enterprise or recognizing the monetary aspect of these offenses and putting an end to it.

Edwards continued: “Our prospects are significantly higher of effecting meaningful change than Congress, because we know the facts and history of the case and are not motivated by partisan interests but rather by a sincere intention to create substantial impact and to safeguard the survivors, who have already suffered tremendously.

“We approach these matters without any partisan motives and thus cannot be deterred by obstructions, shielding influential figures, or the other shameful political maneuvering 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 decades without being caught, we are taking a further significant action forward toward legal resolution for survivors.”

Bank Responses

Asked for comment on the legal complaint, 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.”