🔗 Share this article

Over many years, survivors of Jeffrey Epstein have demanded justice. At one point, it seemed like they would get it.

Epstein’s former associate Ghislaine Maxwell, the financier’s one-time partner, was convicted of human trafficking in a 2021 trial for her role in the deceased billionaire’s sexual abuse of underage females – and sentenced to two decades behind bars.

At the same time, financial firms that had worked with Epstein, although not admitting wrongdoing, agreed to pay hundreds of millions in settlements to survivors. Former President Trump even made releasing the Epstein investigative files part of his campaign platform, and doubled down on his promise to do so in recent months.

Ultimately, the administration’s Department of Justice did not make public these files, and his administration has become involved in allegations about social ties between him and Epstein. Congressional promises to release files have lagged, due to political jockeying and justice department foot-dragging.

However two new lawsuits could shed light on Epstein’s operations amid the stalemate – irrespective of their result.

Lawsuits Target Major Banks

These lawsuits, submitted by an unnamed accuser against Bank of America and the Bank of New York Mellon (BNY), claim that these financial powerhouses unlawfully facilitated Epstein’s sex trafficking. The cases are helmed by Sigrid S McCawley, of Boies Schiller Flexner, and Brad Edwards of Edwards Henderson, who have consistently advocated for Epstein victims.

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

The Bank of America suit mirrors these claims, declaring the institution “knowingly provided the monetary resources and the appearance of respectability for Epstein and his accomplices to fuel their international sex trafficking organization under the guise of non-criminal business activities”. The legal action also said Bank of America neglected to file mandatory financial alerts.

Attorneys Offer Perspectives on Legal Hurdles

Experienced lawyers who spoke to the matter said establishing liability would be challenging. But they also identified possible outcomes which could offer comfort to plaintiffs or disclosure of previously hidden details.

Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor who established 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 obviously I am on the side of the victims, and I want them to get explanations and criminal justice and financial recovery,” Rahmani 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 “if not for the bank’s actions, the injury wouldn’t have happened”. In this instance, that would translate to “absent the institution’s involvement, the victim maybe wouldn’t have been trafficked”, 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 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 substantial factor? I don’t know.”

Regardless of legal responsibility, 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,” he said. If the banks try to get these suits dismissed and fail, Rahmani 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 Varner Faddis and former prosecutor, said corporations can be liable. In this scenario, “if the institutions bear fault is going to hinge, in part, on their level of awareness, whether they had any knowledge of alleged abuse or illegal acts”, and somehow provided assistance to Epstein.

“However, even in that case, I think it’s going to be difficult to sort of loop the banks into some kind of trafficking operation. The institutions would probably not be aware of the particulars of claims,” Faddis said. While Epstein’s Florida conviction was public, “there’s no law against for a bank to have a customer who’s an disreputable individual”.

“It is illegal for a financial firm to in any way be involved in the illegal actions of a customer, but those two issues are distinct, and so I think that it’s going to be a tough lawsuit against the banks.”

Possible Advantages for Victims

That said, important aspects 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 individuals seeking this data, when there’s a lawsuit, there’s a discovery process, and that discovery process often requires release of materials that was not previously public.”

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

“The lawsuits are necessary for complete justice for the victims of Jeffrey Epstein – as well as for potential targets who will be harmed from comparable criminal networks – if our banks are not held accountable for the crucial part each plays, either in providing the necessary infrastructure for the criminal enterprise or identifying the financial component 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 background of the matter and are not driven by partisan interests but rather by a genuine desire to make a real difference and to protect the victims, who have already endured immense pain.

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

Attorney Sigrid McCawley said in a declaration: “While legislators attempt to uncover how the financier was able to conduct his illegal trafficking operation for decades without being caught, we are taking a further significant action forward toward justice for victims.”

Institutional Reactions

Asked for comment on the legal complaint, the Bank of New York Mellon said: “The allegations in the case are baseless, and we will vigorously defend against it.”

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