🔗 Share this article

For years, survivors of the late financier Jeffrey Epstein have sought accountability. For a while, it seemed like they would achieve it.

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

Meanwhile, banks that had done business with Epstein, although not accepting fault, paid hundreds of millions in agreements to victims. Former President Trump even made releasing the Epstein investigative files part of his election promises, and reiterated on his commitment to do so in recent months.

In the end, the administration’s Department of Justice did not release these files, and his government has become involved in allegations about social ties between him and Epstein. Congressional promises to disclose documents have lagged, due to political jockeying and delays from federal authorities.

However recent legal actions could shed light on Epstein’s operations amid the deadlock – irrespective of their result.

Legal Actions Aim at Major Banks

These lawsuits, filed by an anonymous plaintiff against Bank of America and the BNY Mellon, claim that these financial powerhouses unlawfully facilitated Epstein’s sex trafficking. The suits are helmed by Sigrid S McCawley, of Boies Schiller Flexner, 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 power, but through financial backing and monetary assistance from both individuals and organizations, including BNY,” one lawsuit states. “Shockingly, 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 mirrors these claims, declaring the institution “deliberately supplied 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 suit also said the bank neglected to file mandatory financial alerts.

Legal Experts Offer Perspectives on Case Challenges

Longtime attorneys who spoke to the situation said establishing liability would be challenging. But they also identified potential results which could provide solace to plaintiffs or release of previously hidden details.

Neama Rahmani, a ex-government lawyer who established a legal firm, said proof has to show that an institution’s actions led to 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 financial recovery,” Rahmani said. Certain allegations might be not directly related from a juridical perspective.

“It all comes down to evidence,” Rahmani said. A lawyer would need to prove cause and effect, which would mean “but for the defendant’s conduct, the injury wouldn’t have occurred”. In this instance, that would boil down to “absent the institution’s involvement, the survivor maybe wouldn’t have been exploited”, Rahmani clarified.

An attorney would also have to go beyond a “but for” measure. “Is not just ‘but for’ causation. It also has to be a substantial factor: that is the legal test. So any improper behavior there was, if there was any misconduct … the defendant’s misconduct has to have been a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff harm.

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

Liability aside, such lawsuits could serve as a warning that relationships with those involved in alleged crimes can have negative consequences for them.

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

Attorney Eric Faddis, a trial attorney and principal of the Colorado law firm his firm and ex-government lawyer, said companies can be responsible. In this situation, “whether the banks have liability is going to hinge, in part, on their level of awareness, whether they had any knowledge of claimed misconduct or illegal acts”, and somehow offered support 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 sex-trafficking scheme. The banks would probably not be aware of the particulars of allegations,” Faddis said. While the financier’s prior legal case was public, “there’s no law against for a financial institution to have a customer who’s an unsavory person”.

“However, it is unlawful for a financial firm to somehow be involved in the illegal actions of a client, but these aspects are very different, and so I think that it’s going to be a tough lawsuit against the banks.”

Potential Benefits for Survivors

That said, key elements of the legal proceedings could help those affected by Epstein.

“These cases may uncover additional details about the continuing Epstein story,” Faddis said. “Even though there have been obstacles erected at every turn for individuals seeking this data, when there’s a lawsuit, there’s a evidence-gathering phase, and that legal procedure often mandates disclosure of materials that was not previously public.”

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

“Legal actions are essential for full accountability for the survivors of Jeffrey Epstein – as well as for potential targets who will suffer from similar trafficking organizations – if our financial institutions are not held accountable for the essential role each plays, either in supplying the required framework for the criminal enterprise or recognizing the financial component of these offenses and putting an end to it.

Edwards continued: “Our prospects are significantly higher of making a real difference than lawmakers, because we understand the facts and background of the matter and are not driven by partisan interests 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 partisan motives and thus will not be swayed by obstructions, protecting wealthy politically connected individuals, or the other embarrassing partisan gamesmanship you and the rest of the world have had to watch unfold recently.”

McCawley said in a statement: “While legislators attempt to uncover how the financier was able to conduct his illegal trafficking operation for many years without detection, we are taking a further significant action forward toward justice for victims.”

Institutional Reactions

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

Bank of America’s statement likewise stated: “We intend to firmly protect our interests in this matter.”