🔗 Share this article

For years, victims of the late financier Jeffrey Epstein have sought justice. At one point, it appeared like they would get it.

Ghislaine Maxwell, the financier’s one-time partner, was found guilty of human trafficking in a 2021 trial for her involvement in the late financier’s sexual abuse of teen girls – and given to two decades behind bars.

At the same time, financial firms that had done business with Epstein, although not accepting fault, agreed to pay substantial sums in settlements to survivors. Former President Trump even made disclosing the documents related to the Epstein probe part of his campaign platform, and reiterated on his commitment to do so early this year.

Ultimately, Trump’s justice department did not make public these files, and his government has become involved in allegations about personal connections between him and Epstein. Congressional promises to disclose documents have lagged, due to political jockeying and justice department foot-dragging.

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

Legal Actions Target Leading Financial Institutions

The legal complaints, submitted by an unnamed accuser against Bank of America and the Bank of New York Mellon (BNY), allege that these financial powerhouses illicitly enabled Epstein’s trafficking ring. The cases are helmed by Sigrid S McCawley, of a prominent law firm, and lawyer Brad Edwards of his legal practice, who have consistently advocated for Epstein victims.

“The financier carried out these offenses by means of not only his own extraordinary wealth and influence, but through financial backing and financial support from both private parties and organizations, including BNY,” one lawsuit states. “Shockingly, BNY had a plethora of information regarding Epstein’s sex trafficking operation but chose profit 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 co-conspirators to fuel their international sex trafficking organization under the pretext of legal commercial dealings”. The legal action also said the bank failed to file suspicious activity reports.

Legal Experts Offer Perspectives on Legal Hurdles

Experienced lawyers who spoke to the matter said proving such a case would be difficult. But they also noted possible outcomes which could provide solace to accusers or release of long-sought information.

Neama Rahmani, a ex-government lawyer who founded a legal firm, said proof has to show that an bank’s conduct 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 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 lawyer would need to prove causation, which would mean “but for the defendant’s conduct, the harm wouldn’t have happened”. In this case, that would boil down to “absent the institution’s involvement, the survivor maybe wouldn’t have been exploited”, Rahmani explained.

An attorney 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 legal test. So whatever misconduct there was, if there was any wrongdoing … the defendant’s misconduct has to have been a key contributor in leading to the plaintiff harm.

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

Regardless of legal responsibility, such lawsuits could put institutions on notice that associations with those accused of wrongdoing can have negative consequences for them.

“It’s a PR nightmare,” he said. If the financial institutions try to get these cases dismissed and fail, the attorney anticipates a swift settlement. “No party desires to pursue any of the legal matters tied to Epstein.”

Eric Faddis, a trial attorney and founder of the Colorado law firm Varner Faddis and ex-government lawyer, said companies can be responsible. In this scenario, “if the institutions bear fault is going to hinge, in part, on what the banks knew, whether they had any knowledge of claimed misconduct or criminal wrongdoing”, and in some way provided assistance to Epstein.

“But even then, 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 privy to the particulars of allegations,” Faddis said. While Epstein’s Florida conviction was public, “it’s not illegal for a financial institution to have a customer who’s an unsavory person”.

“It is illegal for a bank to in any way be complicit in the illegal actions of a client, but those two issues are very different, and so I think that it’s going to be a difficult case against the banks.”

Possible Advantages for Victims

Nevertheless, 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 obstacles erected at every turn for individuals pursuing this information, when there’s a lawsuit, there’s a evidence-gathering phase, and that legal procedure often mandates disclosure of materials that was not formerly available.”

Attorney Brad Edwards said in a comment that the suits could have a preventive impact and achieve what lawmakers have been unable to do.

“Legal actions are essential for full accountability for the survivors of the financier – as well as for potential targets who will be harmed from similar trafficking organizations – if our financial institutions are not held accountable for the essential role each plays, either in supplying the necessary infrastructure for the illegal operation or identifying the monetary aspect of these crimes and putting an end to it.

Edwards continued: “Our prospects are significantly higher of making a real difference than lawmakers, because we understand the details and background of the case and are not motivated by politics but rather by a sincere intention 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 cannot be deterred by shutdowns, shielding influential figures, or the other embarrassing partisan gamesmanship you and the rest of the world have had to watch unfold 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 detection, we are taking a further significant action forward toward legal resolution for survivors.”

Institutional Reactions

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

The bank’s response similarly remarked: “We will vigorously defend ourselves in this matter.”