🔗 Share this article

Over many years, survivors of Jeffrey Epstein have sought accountability. For a while, it seemed like they would get it.

Ghislaine Maxwell, the financier’s one-time partner, was found guilty of sex trafficking four years ago for her role in the late financier’s exploitation of teen girls – and given to two decades behind bars.

Meanwhile, financial firms that had done business with Epstein, although not accepting fault, paid hundreds of millions in agreements to victims. Donald Trump even made releasing 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 government has become involved in reports about social ties between him and Epstein. Assurances from lawmakers to release files have lagged, due to partisan maneuvering and justice department foot-dragging.

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

Legal Actions Target Major Banks

The legal complaints, filed by an anonymous plaintiff against a major U.S. bank and the Bank of New York Mellon (BNY), claim that these financial powerhouses unlawfully facilitated Epstein’s trafficking ring. The suits are led by Sigrid S McCawley, of a prominent law firm, and lawyer Brad Edwards of his legal practice, who have consistently advocated for survivors of Epstein’s abuse.

“Epstein committed these crimes by means of not only his own extraordinary wealth and influence, but through access to funding and monetary assistance from both individuals and institutions, including BNY,” the legal filing states. “Egregiously, the institution had a abundance of knowledge regarding Epstein’s sex trafficking operation but opted for financial gain over protecting the victims.”

The complaint against Bank of America echoes these allegations, asserting the institution “deliberately supplied the financial support and the veneer of institutional legitimacy for Epstein and his accomplices to support their global trafficking enterprise under the pretext of legal commercial dealings”. The legal action also said Bank of America failed to file mandatory financial alerts.

Attorneys Weigh In on Legal Hurdles

Longtime attorneys who commented on the matter said establishing liability would be challenging. But they also noted potential results which could offer comfort to plaintiffs or release of previously hidden details.

Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor who established West Coast Trial lawyers, said proof has to show that an institution’s actions led to harm.

“In my view, the case faces significant obstacles – and obviously I am on the side of the victims, and I want them to get answers and legal redress and compensation,” the attorney 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 occurred”. In this case, that would boil down to “but for the bank’s conduct, the survivor maybe wouldn’t have been exploited”, Rahmani clarified.

An attorney would also have to go beyond a basic causation test. “It’s not solely about indirect cause. It also has to be a significant element: that is the legal test. So whatever misconduct there was, if there was any misconduct … the defendant’s misconduct has to have been a key contributor in leading to the victim’s suffering.

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

Regardless of legal responsibility, such lawsuits could serve as a warning that relationships with those involved in alleged crimes can have negative consequences for them.

“It’s a PR nightmare,” Rahmani noted. If the banks try to get these suits thrown out and are unsuccessful, the attorney anticipates a swift settlement. “No party desires to pursue any of the Epstein-related cases.”

Eric Faddis, a trial attorney and principal of the legal practice Varner Faddis and former prosecutor, said companies can be liable. In this situation, “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 in some way offered support to Epstein.

“But even then, I think it’s going to be difficult to effectively connect the financial entities into some kind of sex-trafficking scheme. The banks would likely not be privy to the details of claims,” Faddis said. While Epstein’s Florida conviction was public, “it’s not illegal for a bank to have a client who’s an unsavory person”.

“However, it is unlawful for a bank to somehow be complicit in the illegal actions of a customer, but these aspects are distinct, and so I think that it’s going to be a tough lawsuit against the banks.”

Possible Advantages for Victims

Nevertheless, important aspects of the litigation could assist Epstein survivors.

“The lawsuits have the potential to reveal more information about the ongoing Epstein saga,” Faddis said. “Even though there have been obstacles erected at every turn for individuals pursuing this data, when there’s a legal action, there’s a discovery process, and that legal procedure often requires disclosure of materials that was not previously public.”

Attorney Brad Edwards said in a comment that the lawsuits could have a deterrent effect and accomplish what lawmakers 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 suffer from comparable criminal networks – if our banks are not made responsible for the crucial part each plays, either in supplying the required framework for the criminal enterprise or recognizing the financial component of these crimes and putting an end to it.

He added: “Our prospects are significantly higher of making a real difference than lawmakers, because we know the facts and history of the matter 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 watch unfold recently.”

Attorney Sigrid McCawley said in a declaration: “While legislators attempt to uncover how the financier was able to orchestrate his criminal sex-trafficking enterprise for decades without detection, we are taking another important step forward toward legal resolution for survivors.”

Bank Responses

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

Bank of America’s statement similarly remarked: “We intend to firmly protect our interests in this matter.”