🔗 Share this article

For years, victims of the late financier Jeffrey Epstein have demanded justice. For a while, it seemed like they would get it.

Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s ex-girlfriend, was convicted of human trafficking in a 2021 trial for her role in the late financier’s exploitation of teen girls – and sentenced to 20 years imprisonment.

At the same time, banks that had done business with Epstein, although not admitting wrongdoing, paid hundreds of millions in agreements to survivors. Former President Trump even made releasing the Epstein investigative files part of his campaign platform, and reiterated on his promise to do so early this year.

In the end, Trump’s justice department did not release these files, and his administration has become embroiled in reports about personal connections between him and Epstein. Congressional promises to release files have lagged, due to political jockeying and delays from federal authorities.

However recent legal actions could shed light on Epstein’s activities amid the stalemate – irrespective of their outcome.

Legal Actions Target Leading Financial Institutions

These lawsuits, filed by an unnamed accuser against Bank of America and the BNY Mellon, allege that these banking giants unlawfully facilitated Epstein’s trafficking ring. The suits are led by Sigrid S McCawley, of a prominent law firm, and Brad Edwards of Edwards Henderson, who have long represented Epstein victims.

“Epstein committed these crimes by means of not only his own extraordinary wealth and influence, but through financial backing and financial support from both individuals and institutions, including the bank,” one lawsuit states. “Shockingly, the institution had a plethora of information regarding Epstein’s sex trafficking operation but chose profit over safeguarding those harmed.”

The Bank of America suit mirrors these claims, declaring the institution “deliberately supplied the financial support and the appearance of respectability for Epstein and his accomplices to support their global trafficking enterprise under the guise of legal commercial dealings”. The suit also said Bank of America neglected to file suspicious activity reports.

Legal Experts Weigh In on Legal Hurdles

Longtime attorneys who spoke to the situation said proving such a case would be difficult. But they also identified possible outcomes which could offer comfort to plaintiffs or release of previously hidden details.

Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor who founded West Coast Trial lawyers, 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 explanations and legal redress and financial recovery,” Rahmani said. Certain allegations might be not directly related from a legal standpoint.

“It all comes down to evidence,” he said. A attorney would need to prove causation, which would mean “if not for the bank’s actions, the harm wouldn’t have occurred”. In this case, that would boil down to “but for the bank’s conduct, the victim maybe wouldn’t have been exploited”, Rahmani explained.

A lawyer would also have to go further than a “but for” measure. “Is not just ‘but for’ causation. It also has to be a substantial factor: that is the standard. So whatever misconduct there was, if there was any misconduct … the bank’s actions has to have been a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff harm.

“By engaging in a business relationship with Epstein, is that a substantial factor? I don’t know.”

Regardless of legal responsibility, suits like this could put institutions on notice that relationships with those accused of wrongdoing 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 anticipates a swift settlement. “No one wants to go litigate any of the Epstein-related cases.”

Attorney Eric Faddis, a litigator and founder of the Colorado law firm Varner Faddis and former prosecutor, said corporations can be responsible. In this situation, “if the institutions bear fault is going to hinge, 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.

“However, even in that case, I think it’s going to be hard to effectively connect the financial entities into some kind of trafficking operation. The banks would probably not be privy to the details 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”.

“It is illegal for a financial firm to in any way be complicit in the criminal activity of a customer, but those two issues are distinct, and so I think that it’s going to be a tough lawsuit against the banks.”

Possible Advantages for Survivors

That said, key elements of the litigation could assist those affected by Epstein.

“These cases may uncover additional details about the continuing Epstein story,” Faddis said. “Despite the fact that there have been obstacles erected at every turn for folks seeking this information, when there’s a legal action, there’s a discovery process, and that legal procedure often requires disclosure of information that was not formerly available.”

Edwards said in a comment that the lawsuits could have a deterrent effect and achieve what lawmakers 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 plays, either in supplying the necessary infrastructure for the criminal enterprise or identifying the financial component of these crimes and putting an end to it.

He added: “We have a far better chance of making a real difference than Congress, because we understand the details and background of the case and are not driven by politics but rather by a genuine desire to make a real difference and to protect the victims, who have already endured immense pain.

“We approach these matters without any political agenda and thus cannot be deterred by obstructions, protecting wealthy politically connected individuals, or the other shameful political maneuvering you and the rest of the world have had to watch unfold recently.”

McCawley said in a statement: “As Congress works toward unraveling how the financier was able to conduct his illegal trafficking operation for many years without detection, we are taking another important step forward toward justice for victims.”

Bank Responses

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

The bank’s response likewise stated: “We intend to firmly protect our interests in this matter.”