🔗 Share this article

Over many years, victims of Jeffrey Epstein have demanded justice. For a while, it appeared like they would achieve it.

Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s ex-girlfriend, was convicted of human trafficking four years ago for her role in the deceased billionaire’s sexual abuse of teen girls – and sentenced to two decades behind bars.

Meanwhile, banks that had done business with Epstein, while not accepting fault, agreed to pay substantial sums in settlements to survivors. Donald Trump even made releasing the Epstein investigative files part of his election promises, and reiterated on his commitment to do so in recent months.

In the end, Trump’s justice department did not make public these files, and his government has become involved in reports about social ties between him and Epstein. Assurances from lawmakers to release files have stalled, due to political jockeying and delays from federal authorities.

However two new lawsuits could provide clarity on Epstein’s activities amid the stalemate – regardless of their result.

Lawsuits Aim at 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 sex trafficking. The suits are led by Sigrid S McCawley, of Boies Schiller Flexner, and lawyer Brad Edwards of Edwards Henderson, who have consistently advocated for survivors of Epstein’s abuse.

“Epstein committed these crimes by means of not only his own extraordinary wealth and power, but through financial backing and monetary assistance from both private parties and organizations, including BNY,” one lawsuit claims. “Egregiously, BNY had a plethora of information regarding Epstein’s trafficking network but chose profit over safeguarding those harmed.”

The Bank of America suit echoes these allegations, declaring the institution “knowingly provided the monetary resources and the veneer of institutional legitimacy for Epstein and his co-conspirators to fuel their global trafficking enterprise under the pretext of non-criminal business activities”. The legal action also said the bank neglected to file suspicious activity reports.

Attorneys Offer Perspectives on Case Challenges

Experienced lawyers who spoke to the matter said proving such a case would be difficult. But they also noted potential results which could offer comfort to plaintiffs or release of long-sought information.

Attorney Neama Rahmani, a ex-government lawyer who founded West Coast Trial lawyers, said proof 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 clearly I am on the side of the survivors, and I want them to get answers and criminal justice and compensation,” 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 happened”. In this case, that would translate to “but for the bank’s conduct, the survivor maybe wouldn’t have been exploited”, Rahmani explained.

A lawyer would also have to go further than a “but for” measure. “It’s not solely about indirect cause. It also has to be a substantial factor: that is the standard. So any improper behavior there was, if there was any misconduct … the bank’s actions has to have been a key contributor in leading to the plaintiff harm.

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

Liability aside, such lawsuits could put institutions on notice that associations with those involved in alleged crimes can have damaging implications for them.

“It’s a PR nightmare,” Rahmani noted. If the banks try to get these suits dismissed and fail, Rahmani expects a quick resolution. “No party desires to pursue any of the legal matters tied to Epstein.”

Attorney Eric Faddis, a trial attorney and founder of the legal practice his firm and ex-government lawyer, said companies can be responsible. In this scenario, “whether the banks have liability is going to depend, in part, on what the banks knew, whether they had any knowledge of alleged abuse or illegal acts”, and somehow 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 sex-trafficking scheme. The institutions would likely not be aware of the details of allegations,” the lawyer said. While the financier’s prior legal case 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 bank to somehow 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 tough lawsuit against the banks.”

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,” the attorney said. “Despite the fact that there have been sort of walls put up at every turn for individuals pursuing this data, when there’s a lawsuit, there’s a evidence-gathering phase, and that legal procedure often requires release of materials that was not previously public.”

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

“The lawsuits are necessary for complete justice for the survivors of Jeffrey Epstein – as well as for future would-be victims who will be harmed 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 recognizing 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 matter and are not driven by partisan interests but rather by a genuine desire to make a real difference and to safeguard the victims, who have already suffered tremendously.

“Our handling of these issues without any political agenda and thus will not be swayed by shutdowns, 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 declaration: “As Congress works toward unraveling how Jeffrey Epstein was able to orchestrate his illegal trafficking operation for many years without being caught, we are taking a further significant action forward toward legal resolution for survivors.”

Institutional Reactions

Asked for comment on the lawsuit, 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.”