🔗 Share this article

Over many years, survivors 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, the financier’s one-time partner, was found guilty of sex trafficking four years ago for her role in the late financier’s sexual abuse of teen girls – and sentenced to 20 years imprisonment.

Meanwhile, financial firms that had done business with Epstein, while not admitting wrongdoing, agreed to pay hundreds of millions in settlements to victims. Former President Trump even made releasing the documents related to the Epstein probe part of his election promises, and doubled down on his commitment to do so in recent months.

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

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

Lawsuits Target Leading Financial Institutions

These lawsuits, filed by an anonymous plaintiff against Bank of America and the Bank of New York Mellon (BNY), claim that these financial powerhouses illicitly enabled Epstein’s sex trafficking. The suits are helmed 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 influence, but through financial backing and financial support from both individuals and institutions, including BNY,” one lawsuit states. “Shockingly, BNY had a abundance of knowledge regarding Epstein’s sex trafficking operation but opted for financial gain over protecting the victims.”

The Bank of America suit echoes these allegations, declaring the institution “knowingly provided the monetary resources and the veneer of institutional legitimacy for Epstein and his accomplices to fuel their global trafficking enterprise under the guise of non-criminal business activities”. The suit also said the bank neglected to file mandatory financial alerts.

Attorneys Offer Perspectives on Case Challenges

Longtime attorneys who spoke to the situation said proving such a case would be difficult. But they also identified potential results which could provide solace to accusers or release of long-sought information.

Attorney Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor who founded a legal firm, said proof has to show that an bank’s conduct led to 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 legal standpoint.

“The case hinges on proof,” Rahmani said. A attorney would need to prove cause and effect, which would mean “if not for the bank’s actions, the harm wouldn’t have happened”. In this instance, that would translate to “absent the institution’s involvement, the survivor maybe wouldn’t have been trafficked”, the lawyer explained.

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 standard. So whatever misconduct there was, if there was any misconduct … the bank’s actions has to have been a key contributor in causing the plaintiff harm.

“Through maintaining financial ties to Epstein, is that a decisive element? I don’t know.”

Regardless of legal responsibility, 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 banks try to get these suits dismissed and are unsuccessful, the attorney expects a quick resolution. “No one wants to go litigate any of the Epstein-related cases.”

Eric Faddis, a trial attorney and principal of the legal practice his firm and ex-government lawyer, said corporations can be liable. In this situation, “whether the banks have liability is going to depend, in part, on what the banks knew, if they were informed of claimed misconduct or illegal acts”, and somehow provided assistance to Epstein.

“However, even in that case, I think it’s going to be hard to sort of loop the financial entities into some kind of trafficking operation. The banks would probably not be aware of the particulars of allegations,” the lawyer said. While Epstein’s Florida conviction was known, “it’s not illegal for a financial institution to have a client who’s an unsavory person”.

“It is illegal for a financial firm to somehow be involved in the illegal actions of a customer, 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

That said, key elements of the litigation could assist those affected by Epstein.

“These cases may uncover additional details about the ongoing Epstein saga,” the attorney said. “Even though there have been obstacles erected at every turn for folks pursuing this data, when there’s a lawsuit, there’s a discovery process, and that legal procedure often mandates disclosure of information that was not formerly available.”

Attorney Brad Edwards said in a statement that the lawsuits could have a deterrent effect and accomplish what lawmakers 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 suffer from comparable criminal networks – if our financial institutions are not made responsible for the essential role each performs, either in providing the required framework for the criminal enterprise or recognizing the monetary aspect of these crimes and stopping it.

Edwards continued: “We have a far better chance of effecting meaningful change than Congress, because we understand the facts and history of the matter and are not driven by partisan interests but rather by a genuine desire to make a real difference and to safeguard the survivors, who have already endured immense pain.

“Our handling of these issues without any partisan motives and thus will not be swayed by shutdowns, 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: “As Congress works toward unraveling how Jeffrey Epstein was able to conduct his illegal trafficking operation for many years without detection, we are taking a further significant action forward toward legal resolution for survivors.”

Institutional Reactions

When requested for a statement on the lawsuit, BNY said: “The allegations in the case are baseless, and we will vigorously defend against it.”

Bank of America’s statement similarly remarked: “We will vigorously defend ourselves in this matter.”