🔗 Share this article

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

Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s ex-girlfriend, was found guilty of human trafficking four years ago for her involvement 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, while not accepting fault, paid substantial sums in settlements to survivors. Former President 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, the administration’s Department of Justice did not release these records, and his administration has become embroiled in allegations about social ties between him and Epstein. Assurances from lawmakers to disclose documents have stalled, due to partisan maneuvering and delays from federal authorities.

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

Legal Actions Target Leading Financial Institutions

These lawsuits, submitted by an anonymous plaintiff against Bank of America and the Bank of New York Mellon (BNY), allege that these financial powerhouses unlawfully facilitated Epstein’s sex trafficking. The suits are led by Sigrid S McCawley, of a prominent law firm, and 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 influence, but through financial backing and monetary assistance from both individuals and institutions, including the bank,” the legal filing claims. “Egregiously, the institution had a plethora of information regarding Epstein’s sex trafficking operation but chose profit over protecting the victims.”

The complaint against Bank of America mirrors these claims, declaring the institution “deliberately supplied the monetary resources and the veneer of institutional legitimacy for Epstein and his co-conspirators to fuel their international sex trafficking organization under the pretext of non-criminal business activities”. The suit also said the bank neglected to file suspicious activity reports.

Attorneys Offer Perspectives on Legal Hurdles

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

Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor 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 explanations and legal redress and compensation,” the attorney said. Some claims might be too tangential from a legal standpoint.

“The case hinges on proof,” he said. A attorney 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 boil down to “absent the institution’s involvement, the survivor maybe wouldn’t have been exploited”, Rahmani clarified.

An attorney would also have to go further than a basic causation test. “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 defendant’s misconduct 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 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 cases thrown out and are unsuccessful, Rahmani expects a swift settlement. “No party desires to pursue any of the legal matters tied to Epstein.”

Attorney Eric Faddis, a litigator and principal of the Colorado law firm his firm and former prosecutor, said corporations can be liable. In this situation, “if the institutions bear fault is going to depend, in part, on their level of awareness, whether they had any knowledge of claimed misconduct 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 institutions would probably not be aware of the particulars of claims,” the lawyer said. While Epstein’s Florida conviction was public, “it’s not illegal for a bank to have a customer who’s an unsavory person”.

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

Potential Benefits for Survivors

That said, important aspects of the litigation could assist Epstein survivors.

“The lawsuits have the potential to reveal more information about the continuing Epstein story,” Faddis said. “Even though there have been sort of walls put up at every turn for individuals seeking this data, when there’s a lawsuit, there’s a evidence-gathering phase, and that legal procedure often requires disclosure of information that was not previously public.”

Attorney Brad Edwards said in a statement that the lawsuits could have a deterrent effect and achieve what lawmakers have been unable to do.

“Legal actions are essential for full accountability for the victims 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 performs, either in supplying the required framework for the illegal operation or identifying the monetary aspect of these offenses and stopping it.

He added: “Our prospects are significantly higher of making a real difference than lawmakers, because we know the details and history of the case and are not motivated by partisan interests but rather by a sincere intention to make a real difference and to safeguard the survivors, who have already endured immense pain.

“Our handling of these issues without any political agenda and thus cannot be deterred by obstructions, 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 statement: “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 another important step forward toward justice for survivors.”

Institutional Reactions

Asked for comment on the lawsuit, the Bank of New York Mellon said: “The allegations in the case are baseless, and we will strongly contest against it.”

Bank of America’s statement similarly remarked: “We will vigorously defend ourselves in this case.”