🔗 Share this article

Over many years, victims of Jeffrey Epstein have demanded accountability. At one point, it seemed like they would achieve it.

Epstein’s former associate Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s ex-girlfriend, was convicted of human trafficking in a 2021 trial for her role in the deceased billionaire’s sexual abuse of teen girls – and sentenced to two decades behind bars.

At the same time, financial firms that had worked with Epstein, while not accepting fault, paid substantial sums in settlements to survivors. Former President Trump even made disclosing the Epstein investigative files part of his election promises, and reiterated on his commitment to do so early this year.

In the end, Trump’s justice department did not make public these files, and his government has become involved in reports about personal connections between him and Epstein. Congressional promises to disclose documents have lagged, due to partisan maneuvering and justice department foot-dragging.

But recent legal actions could shed light on Epstein’s activities amid the stalemate – regardless of their result.

Lawsuits Target Leading Financial Institutions

The legal complaints, 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 suits are led by attorney Sigrid 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 vast fortune and power, but through financial backing and monetary assistance from both private parties and organizations, including BNY,” the legal filing states. “Egregiously, the institution had a abundance of knowledge regarding Epstein’s trafficking network but chose profit over safeguarding those harmed.”

The complaint against Bank of America mirrors these claims, asserting the institution “knowingly provided the financial support and the appearance of respectability for Epstein and his co-conspirators to fuel their international sex trafficking organization under the pretext of legal commercial dealings”. The legal action also said the bank failed to file mandatory financial alerts.

Attorneys Offer Perspectives on Legal Hurdles

Longtime attorneys who spoke to the matter said proving such a case would be difficult. But they also identified possible outcomes which could provide solace to accusers or disclosure of long-sought information.

Attorney Neama Rahmani, a ex-government lawyer who founded a legal firm, said evidence 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 victims, and I want them to get explanations and criminal justice and compensation,” the attorney said. Some claims might be too tangential from a legal standpoint.

“The case hinges on proof,” he said. A lawyer would need to prove causation, which would mean “if not for the bank’s actions, the injury 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”, the lawyer explained.

An attorney would also have to go further than a “but for” measure. “Is not just ‘but for’ causation. It also has to be a significant element: that is the standard. So whatever misconduct there was, if there was any wrongdoing … the defendant’s misconduct has to have been a substantial factor in causing the victim’s suffering.

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

Liability aside, such lawsuits could serve as a warning that relationships with those accused of wrongdoing can have damaging implications for them.

“It represents a reputational disaster,” he said. If the financial institutions try to get these suits thrown out and fail, Rahmani anticipates a quick resolution. “No one wants to go litigate any of the Epstein-related cases.”

Eric Faddis, a trial attorney and principal of the Colorado law firm Varner Faddis and ex-government lawyer, said corporations can be responsible. 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 claimed misconduct or criminal wrongdoing”, and somehow provided assistance to Epstein.

“But even then, I think it’s going to be hard to effectively connect the banks into some kind of sex-trafficking scheme. The banks would likely not be aware of the details of allegations,” Faddis said. While the financier’s prior legal case was public, “it’s not illegal for a financial institution to have a client who’s an unsavory person”.

“It is illegal for a bank to in any way be involved 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 institutions.”

Potential Benefits for Victims

That said, important aspects of the litigation could help those affected by Epstein.

“These cases may uncover additional details about the continuing Epstein story,” the attorney said. “Despite the fact that there have been sort of walls put up at every turn for individuals seeking this data, when there’s a legal action, there’s a discovery process, and that discovery process often requires disclosure of information that was not previously public.”

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

“Legal actions are essential for full accountability for the survivors of Jeffrey Epstein – 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 essential role each performs, either in providing the necessary infrastructure for the criminal enterprise or recognizing the financial component of these crimes and stopping it.

Edwards continued: “We have a far better chance of effecting meaningful change than Congress, because we understand the details and history of the case and are not motivated by partisan interests but rather by a genuine desire to make a real difference and to protect the survivors, who have already suffered tremendously.

“We approach these matters without any political agenda and thus cannot be deterred by shutdowns, shielding influential figures, or the other embarrassing partisan gamesmanship you and the rest of the world have had to observe recently.”

Attorney Sigrid McCawley said in a statement: “While legislators attempt to uncover how Jeffrey Epstein was able to conduct his illegal trafficking operation for many years without being caught, we are taking another important step forward toward legal resolution for victims.”

Bank Responses

Asked for comment on the legal complaint, BNY said: “The claims in the lawsuit are meritless, and we will vigorously defend against it.”

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