🔗 Share this article

For years, survivors of Jeffrey Epstein have sought justice. At one point, it seemed like they would get it.

Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s ex-girlfriend, was found guilty of human trafficking four years ago for her role in the deceased billionaire’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 hundreds of millions in agreements to survivors. Donald Trump even made releasing the documents related to the Epstein probe part of his campaign platform, and reiterated on his commitment to do so early this year.

Ultimately, the administration’s Department of Justice did not release these files, and his administration has become embroiled in reports about social ties between him and Epstein. Congressional promises 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 – regardless of their result.

Lawsuits Aim at Leading Financial Institutions

These lawsuits, filed by an anonymous plaintiff against Bank of America and the BNY Mellon, allege that these banking giants illicitly enabled Epstein’s trafficking ring. The suits are led by Sigrid S McCawley, of a prominent law firm, and Brad Edwards of Edwards Henderson, who have long represented Epstein victims.

“The financier carried out these offenses by means of not only his own extraordinary wealth and power, but through financial backing and monetary assistance from both private parties and institutions, including BNY,” the legal filing states. “Shockingly, BNY had a plethora of information regarding Epstein’s trafficking network but chose profit over protecting the victims.”

The complaint against Bank of America echoes these allegations, asserting the institution “knowingly provided the financial support and the veneer of institutional legitimacy for Epstein and his co-conspirators to support their international sex trafficking organization under the guise of non-criminal business activities”. The suit also said the bank neglected to file mandatory financial alerts.

Legal Experts Offer Perspectives on Legal Hurdles

Longtime attorneys who spoke to the situation said establishing liability would be challenging. But they also noted potential results which could provide solace to accusers or disclosure of previously hidden details.

Neama Rahmani, a ex-government lawyer 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. Certain allegations might be too tangential from a juridical perspective.

“It all comes down to evidence,” he said. A attorney 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 instance, that would boil down to “but for the bank’s conduct, the victim maybe wouldn’t have been trafficked”, Rahmani clarified.

An attorney would also have to go beyond 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 causing the victim’s suffering.

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

Regardless of legal responsibility, suits like this could serve as a warning that relationships with those accused of wrongdoing can have damaging implications for them.

“It’s a PR nightmare,” Rahmani noted. 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 Epstein-related cases.”

Eric Faddis, a litigator and founder of the legal practice his firm and ex-government lawyer, said companies can be responsible. In this situation, “if the institutions bear fault is going to hinge, in part, on what the banks knew, if they were informed of alleged abuse or illegal acts”, and in some way offered support to Epstein.

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

“However, it is unlawful for a financial firm to somehow be involved 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 tough lawsuit against the institutions.”

Potential Benefits for Victims

Nevertheless, key elements of the litigation could help 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 sort of walls put up at every turn for folks pursuing this information, when there’s a legal action, there’s a evidence-gathering phase, and that discovery process often requires release of information that was not formerly available.”

Edwards said in a comment that the lawsuits could have a deterrent effect and achieve what legislators have been unable 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 be harmed from comparable criminal networks – if our banks are not held accountable for the crucial part each performs, either in providing the necessary infrastructure for the illegal operation or recognizing the monetary aspect of these crimes and stopping it.

He added: “We have a far better chance of making a real difference than Congress, because we know the details and history of the matter and are not motivated by politics but rather by a sincere intention to make a real difference and to protect the victims, who have already suffered tremendously.

“Our handling of these issues without any political agenda and thus will not be swayed by shutdowns, shielding influential figures, or the other shameful political maneuvering you and the rest of the world have had to observe recently.”

McCawley said in a statement: “As Congress works toward unraveling how the financier was able to orchestrate his illegal trafficking operation for many years without detection, we are taking another important step forward toward legal resolution for victims.”

Institutional Reactions

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

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