🔗 Share this article

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

Epstein’s former associate Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s ex-girlfriend, was found guilty of sex trafficking four years ago for her role in the deceased billionaire’s sexual abuse of teen girls – and sentenced to two decades behind bars.

Meanwhile, financial firms that had done business with Epstein, while not accepting fault, agreed to pay substantial sums in settlements to victims. Donald Trump even made disclosing the Epstein investigative files part of his election promises, and doubled down on his promise to do so early this year.

In the end, Trump’s justice department did not make public these records, and his government 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 justice department foot-dragging.

But two new lawsuits could provide clarity on Epstein’s activities amid the deadlock – regardless of their outcome.

Legal Actions Target Major Banks

The legal complaints, submitted by an unnamed accuser against Bank of America and the Bank of New York Mellon (BNY), allege that these financial powerhouses illicitly enabled Epstein’s trafficking ring. The cases are helmed by attorney Sigrid McCawley, of Boies Schiller Flexner, and lawyer Brad Edwards of his legal practice, who have long represented Epstein victims.

“Epstein committed these crimes by means of not only his own extraordinary wealth and power, but through access to funding and monetary assistance from both individuals and institutions, including BNY,” the legal filing claims. “Shockingly, the institution had a abundance of knowledge regarding Epstein’s trafficking network but chose profit over safeguarding those harmed.”

The Bank of America suit echoes these allegations, declaring the institution “deliberately supplied the financial support and the appearance of respectability for Epstein and his co-conspirators to support their global trafficking enterprise under the guise of non-criminal business activities”. The suit also said the bank failed to file suspicious activity reports.

Attorneys Weigh In on Case Challenges

Experienced lawyers who commented on the matter said establishing liability would be challenging. But they also identified potential results which could provide solace to accusers or disclosure of previously hidden details.

Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor who established West Coast Trial lawyers, 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 obviously I am on the side of the survivors, and I want them to get answers and legal redress and compensation,” the attorney said. Certain allegations might be not directly related from a legal standpoint.

“It all comes down to evidence,” Rahmani 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 case, that would translate to “but for the bank’s conduct, the survivor maybe wouldn’t have been exploited”, Rahmani clarified.

A lawyer would also have to go beyond a basic causation test. “It’s not solely about indirect cause. 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 leading to the plaintiff harm.

“By engaging in a business relationship with Epstein, is that a substantial factor? I don’t know.”

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

“It’s a PR nightmare,” he said. If the banks try to get these cases thrown out and fail, the attorney expects a swift settlement. “No one wants to go litigate any of the legal matters tied to Epstein.”

Eric Faddis, a litigator 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 what the banks knew, whether they had any knowledge 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 banks into some kind of trafficking operation. The banks would likely not be privy to the particulars of allegations,” Faddis said. While the financier’s prior legal case was public, “it’s not illegal for a bank to have a client who’s an disreputable individual”.

“It is illegal for a bank to somehow be complicit in the illegal actions of a client, but these aspects are very different, and so I think that it’s going to be a difficult case against the institutions.”

Possible Advantages for Victims

Nevertheless, key elements of the legal proceedings could assist those affected by Epstein.

“The lawsuits have the potential to reveal more information about the continuing Epstein story,” the attorney said. “Even though there have been obstacles erected at every turn for individuals pursuing this data, when there’s a lawsuit, there’s a evidence-gathering phase, and that discovery process often mandates release of information that was not previously public.”

Edwards said in a statement that the lawsuits could have a preventive impact and achieve what legislators 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 banks are not made responsible for the crucial part each performs, either in supplying the necessary infrastructure for the criminal enterprise or identifying the monetary aspect 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 history of the case and are not driven by partisan interests but rather by a sincere intention to create substantial impact and to safeguard the victims, who have already endured immense pain.

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

McCawley said in a statement: “As Congress works toward unraveling how Jeffrey Epstein was able to orchestrate his criminal sex-trafficking enterprise for many years without being caught, we are taking a further significant action forward toward legal resolution for victims.”

Bank Responses

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

The bank’s response similarly remarked: “We will vigorously defend ourselves in this matter.”