🔗 Share this article

Over many years, victims of the late financier Jeffrey Epstein have sought justice. For a while, it seemed like they would get it.

Ghislaine Maxwell, the financier’s one-time partner, was convicted of sex trafficking in a 2021 trial for her role in the late financier’s exploitation of underage females – and sentenced to two decades behind bars.

At the same time, banks that had worked with Epstein, although not accepting fault, agreed to pay hundreds of millions in settlements to victims. Donald Trump even made disclosing the documents related to the Epstein probe part of his election promises, and doubled down on his promise to do so in recent months.

Ultimately, Trump’s justice department did not release these files, and his administration has become involved in allegations about personal connections between him and Epstein. Assurances from lawmakers to disclose documents have stalled, due to partisan maneuvering and delays from federal authorities.

However recent legal actions could provide clarity on Epstein’s activities amid the deadlock – regardless of their outcome.

Lawsuits Aim at Leading Financial Institutions

The legal complaints, submitted by an anonymous plaintiff against a major U.S. bank and the BNY Mellon, allege that these financial powerhouses unlawfully facilitated Epstein’s trafficking ring. The cases are led by Sigrid S McCawley, of a prominent law firm, and Brad Edwards of his legal practice, who have consistently advocated for Epstein victims.

“Epstein committed these crimes by means of not only his own vast fortune and influence, but through access to funding and financial support from both private parties and institutions, including the bank,” the legal filing states. “Egregiously, the institution had a plethora of information regarding Epstein’s sex trafficking operation but chose profit over safeguarding those harmed.”

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

Attorneys Weigh In on Legal Hurdles

Longtime attorneys who spoke to 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.

Attorney Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor who established West Coast Trial lawyers, said evidence has to show that an bank’s conduct led to 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 “but for the defendant’s conduct, the harm wouldn’t have occurred”. In this instance, that would translate to “absent the institution’s involvement, the survivor maybe wouldn’t have been trafficked”, the lawyer clarified.

A lawyer would also have to go beyond a basic causation test. “Is not just ‘but for’ causation. 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 causing the victim’s suffering.

“By engaging in a business relationship with Epstein, is that a decisive element? It’s uncertain.”

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

“It’s a PR nightmare,” he said. If the financial institutions try to get these suits dismissed and are unsuccessful, Rahmani expects a swift settlement. “No party desires to pursue any of the legal matters tied to Epstein.”

Eric Faddis, a trial attorney and principal of the Colorado law firm his firm and former prosecutor, said corporations can be responsible. In this scenario, “if the institutions bear fault is going to hinge, in part, on what the banks knew, if they were informed of alleged abuse or criminal wrongdoing”, and somehow provided assistance to Epstein.

“However, even in that case, I think it’s going to be hard to effectively connect the banks into some kind of trafficking operation. The banks would likely not be privy to the particulars of allegations,” the lawyer said. While Epstein’s Florida conviction was known, “there’s no law against for a bank to have a customer who’s an unsavory person”.

“However, it is unlawful for a financial firm to somehow be complicit in the criminal activity of a client, but these aspects are very different, and so I think that it’s going to be a difficult case against the banks.”

Possible Advantages for Survivors

Nevertheless, important aspects of the legal proceedings could help those affected by Epstein.

“These cases may uncover additional details about the ongoing Epstein saga,” Faddis said. “Even though there have been sort of walls put up at every turn for individuals seeking this information, when there’s a lawsuit, there’s a discovery process, and that discovery process often mandates release of information that was not formerly available.”

Edwards said in a comment that the suits 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 the financier – as well as for future would-be victims who will be harmed from comparable criminal networks – if our financial institutions are not held accountable for the essential role each performs, either in providing the necessary infrastructure for the illegal operation or identifying the financial component of these offenses and stopping it.

Edwards continued: “We have a far better chance of effecting meaningful change than lawmakers, because we understand the facts and background of the case and are not motivated by politics 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 political agenda and thus cannot be deterred by shutdowns, protecting wealthy politically connected individuals, or the other shameful political maneuvering you and the rest of the world have had to observe recently.”

Attorney Sigrid McCawley said in a statement: “As Congress works toward unraveling how Jeffrey Epstein was able to orchestrate his criminal sex-trafficking enterprise for decades without being caught, we are taking another important step forward toward justice for victims.”

Institutional Reactions

When requested for a statement on the lawsuit, 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 similarly remarked: “We will vigorously defend ourselves in this case.”