🔗 Share this article

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

Epstein’s former associate Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s ex-girlfriend, was found guilty of sex trafficking four years ago for her role in the late financier’s exploitation of teen girls – and sentenced to 20 years imprisonment.

Meanwhile, banks that had worked with Epstein, although not accepting fault, agreed to pay hundreds of millions in settlements to survivors. Donald Trump even made disclosing the documents related to the Epstein probe part of his election promises, and doubled down on his promise to do so early this year.

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

But two new lawsuits could provide clarity on Epstein’s operations amid the stalemate – irrespective of their result.

Lawsuits Aim at Major Banks

These lawsuits, submitted by an anonymous plaintiff against a major U.S. bank and the Bank of New York Mellon (BNY), claim that these banking giants unlawfully facilitated Epstein’s trafficking ring. The cases are helmed 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 individuals and institutions, including BNY,” one lawsuit claims. “Egregiously, BNY had a plethora of information regarding Epstein’s sex trafficking operation but opted for financial gain over protecting the victims.”

The Bank of America suit echoes these allegations, asserting the institution “deliberately supplied the monetary resources and the appearance of respectability for Epstein and his accomplices to fuel their international sex trafficking organization under the pretext of non-criminal business activities”. The legal action also said the bank neglected to file mandatory financial alerts.

Attorneys Weigh In on Case Challenges

Experienced lawyers who spoke to the matter said proving such a case would be challenging. But they also identified potential results which could offer comfort to plaintiffs or disclosure of previously hidden details.

Neama Rahmani, a ex-government lawyer who established West Coast Trial lawyers, said evidence has to show that an bank’s conduct 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 survivors, and I want them to get explanations and criminal justice and compensation,” the attorney said. Some claims 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 injury 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”, the lawyer clarified.

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 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 leading to the victim’s suffering.

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

Liability aside, suits like this could put institutions on notice that relationships with those accused of wrongdoing can have damaging implications for them.

“It represents a reputational disaster,” Rahmani noted. If the financial institutions try to get these suits dismissed and fail, the attorney anticipates a swift settlement. “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 Varner Faddis and ex-government lawyer, said corporations can be responsible. In this scenario, “if the institutions bear fault is going to depend, in part, on what the banks knew, if they were informed of alleged abuse or illegal acts”, and somehow provided assistance to Epstein.

“But even then, I think it’s going to be difficult to effectively connect the banks into some kind of trafficking operation. The banks would probably not be aware of the particulars of allegations,” the lawyer said. While the financier’s prior legal case was public, “it’s not illegal for a financial institution to have a customer who’s an disreputable individual”.

“It is illegal for a bank to in any way be complicit in the illegal actions of a client, but these aspects 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 litigation could help Epstein survivors.

“The lawsuits have the potential to reveal more information about the continuing Epstein story,” Faddis 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 discovery process, and that legal procedure often requires release of materials that was not previously public.”

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

“Legal actions are essential for full accountability for the survivors of Jeffrey Epstein – as well as for future would-be victims who will suffer 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 criminal enterprise or recognizing the monetary aspect of these crimes and putting an end to it.

He added: “Our prospects are significantly higher of effecting meaningful change than lawmakers, because we know the facts and history of the matter and are not driven by politics but rather by a genuine desire to create substantial impact and to protect the victims, who have already suffered tremendously.

“We approach these matters without any political agenda and thus will not be swayed by shutdowns, protecting wealthy politically connected individuals, 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 criminal sex-trafficking enterprise for many years without being caught, we are taking another important step forward toward legal resolution for victims.”

Bank Responses

When requested for a statement on the lawsuit, BNY said: “The claims in the lawsuit are meritless, and we will vigorously defend against it.”

The bank’s response likewise stated: “We will vigorously defend ourselves in this case.”