🔗 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.

Epstein’s former associate Ghislaine Maxwell, the financier’s one-time partner, was found guilty of human trafficking four years ago for her role in the late financier’s exploitation of teen girls – and given to 20 years imprisonment.

Meanwhile, financial firms that had done business with Epstein, while not admitting wrongdoing, agreed to pay hundreds of millions in agreements to survivors. Donald Trump even made disclosing the Epstein investigative files part of his campaign platform, and doubled down on his commitment to do so in recent months.

Ultimately, the administration’s Department of Justice did not release these files, and his administration has become embroiled in allegations about social ties between him and Epstein. Assurances from lawmakers to release files have lagged, due to partisan maneuvering and justice department foot-dragging.

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

Lawsuits Target Major Banks

These lawsuits, filed by an anonymous plaintiff against a major U.S. bank and the BNY Mellon, claim that these banking giants unlawfully facilitated Epstein’s sex trafficking. The cases are helmed by Sigrid S McCawley, of Boies Schiller Flexner, and Brad Edwards of his legal practice, who have consistently advocated for survivors of Epstein’s abuse.

“The financier carried out these offenses by means of not only his own extraordinary wealth and power, but through financial backing and financial support from both private parties and organizations, including BNY,” the legal filing states. “Egregiously, the institution had a plethora of information regarding Epstein’s sex trafficking operation but opted for financial gain over safeguarding those harmed.”

The complaint against Bank of America echoes these allegations, asserting the institution “deliberately supplied the monetary resources and the appearance of respectability for Epstein and his co-conspirators to support their international sex trafficking organization under the guise of legal commercial dealings”. The suit also said the bank failed to file suspicious activity reports.

Attorneys Offer Perspectives on Legal Hurdles

Longtime attorneys who commented on 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 previously hidden details.

Attorney Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor who established a legal firm, said evidence has to show that an institution’s actions resulted in harm.

“In my view, the case faces significant obstacles – 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. Some claims might be not directly related from a legal standpoint.

“It all comes down to evidence,” Rahmani 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 instance, that would translate to “absent the institution’s involvement, the survivor maybe wouldn’t have been trafficked”, Rahmani clarified.

An attorney would also have to go beyond a basic causation test. “Is not just ‘but for’ causation. It also has to be a significant element: 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 causing the victim’s suffering.

“Through maintaining financial ties to Epstein, is that a substantial factor? It’s uncertain.”

Regardless of legal responsibility, suits like this 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 financial institutions try to get these suits thrown out and fail, the attorney expects a quick resolution. “No party desires to pursue any of the Epstein-related cases.”

Eric Faddis, a trial attorney and principal of the Colorado law firm his firm and former prosecutor, said corporations can be responsible. In this situation, “whether the banks have liability is going to hinge, in part, on what the banks knew, if they were informed of alleged abuse 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 banks into some kind of sex-trafficking scheme. The institutions would probably not be privy to the details of allegations,” Faddis said. While Epstein’s Florida conviction was known, “it’s not illegal for a financial institution to have a customer who’s an disreputable individual”.

“However, it is unlawful for a bank to somehow be complicit in the criminal activity of a customer, but these aspects are very different, and so I think that it’s going to be a difficult case against the banks.”

Possible Advantages for Victims

Nevertheless, key elements of the legal proceedings could help those affected by Epstein.

“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 folks seeking this data, when there’s a lawsuit, there’s a evidence-gathering phase, and that legal procedure often mandates release 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 failed to do.

“The lawsuits are necessary for complete justice for the survivors of the financier – as well as for future would-be victims who will suffer from comparable criminal networks – if our financial institutions are not made responsible for the crucial part each performs, either in supplying the required framework for the criminal enterprise or recognizing the financial component 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 know the facts and history of the case and are not motivated by partisan interests but rather by a genuine desire to create substantial impact and to protect the victims, who have already suffered tremendously.

“Our handling of these issues without any partisan motives and thus cannot be deterred by shutdowns, protecting wealthy politically connected individuals, or the other embarrassing partisan gamesmanship you and the rest of the world have had to observe recently.”

McCawley said in a declaration: “While legislators attempt to uncover how the financier 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 survivors.”

Institutional Reactions

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

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