🔗 Share this article

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

Epstein’s former associate Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s ex-girlfriend, was found guilty of human trafficking four years ago for her role in the late financier’s exploitation of underage females – and given to 20 years imprisonment.

Meanwhile, financial firms that had done business with Epstein, while not admitting wrongdoing, agreed to pay substantial sums in agreements to victims. Former President Trump even made disclosing the Epstein investigative files part of his campaign platform, and doubled down on his promise to do so in recent months.

In the end, Trump’s justice department did not release these files, and his government has become involved in reports about personal connections between him and Epstein. Assurances from lawmakers to release files have stalled, due to political jockeying and delays from federal authorities.

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

Legal Actions Target Major Banks

These lawsuits, filed by an unnamed accuser against a major U.S. bank and the BNY Mellon, claim that these banking giants unlawfully facilitated Epstein’s sex trafficking. The suits are helmed by attorney Sigrid McCawley, of a prominent law firm, and lawyer Brad Edwards of his legal practice, who have long represented survivors of Epstein’s abuse.

“Epstein committed these crimes by means of not only his own extraordinary wealth and influence, but through access to funding and financial support from both individuals and organizations, including the bank,” one lawsuit states. “Egregiously, the institution had a plethora of information regarding Epstein’s trafficking network but opted for financial gain over safeguarding those harmed.”

The complaint against Bank of America echoes these allegations, asserting 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 Bank of America neglected to file suspicious activity reports.

Legal Experts Weigh In on Case Challenges

Experienced lawyers who commented on 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 previously hidden details.

Attorney Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor who founded 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 answers and criminal justice and financial recovery,” Rahmani said. Some claims might be not directly related from a legal standpoint.

“The case hinges on proof,” he said. A lawyer 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 case, that would boil down to “absent the institution’s involvement, the victim 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 substantial factor: that is the standard. So any improper behavior there was, if there was any misconduct … the bank’s actions has to have been a substantial factor in causing the victim’s suffering.

“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 associations with those involved in alleged crimes can have damaging implications for them.

“It’s a PR nightmare,” Rahmani noted. If the banks try to get these suits dismissed and are unsuccessful, Rahmani expects a quick resolution. “No one wants to go litigate any of the Epstein-related cases.”

Eric Faddis, a litigator and founder of the legal practice Varner Faddis and former prosecutor, said corporations can be responsible. In this situation, “whether the banks have liability is going to depend, in part, on their level of awareness, whether they had any knowledge of alleged abuse or illegal acts”, and somehow offered support to Epstein.

“But even then, I think it’s going to be hard to sort of loop the banks into some kind of trafficking operation. The banks would likely not be aware of the particulars of allegations,” Faddis said. While Epstein’s Florida conviction was public, “there’s no law against for a financial institution to have a client who’s an disreputable individual”.

“However, it is unlawful for a bank to somehow be involved in the illegal actions of a client, but those two issues are very different, and so I think that it’s going to be a difficult case against the institutions.”

Possible Advantages for Survivors

That said, important aspects of the legal proceedings could assist those affected by Epstein.

“The lawsuits have the potential to reveal more information about the continuing Epstein story,” Faddis said. “Despite the fact that there have been sort of walls put up at every turn for individuals pursuing this information, when there’s a legal action, there’s a discovery process, and that legal procedure often mandates release of information that was not formerly available.”

Edwards said in a comment that the lawsuits could have a preventive impact 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 be harmed from similar trafficking organizations – if our banks are not held accountable for the crucial part each plays, either in supplying the necessary infrastructure for the illegal operation or identifying the monetary aspect of these offenses and putting an end to it.

He added: “Our prospects are significantly higher of effecting meaningful change than lawmakers, because we know the details and history of the case and are not motivated by partisan interests but rather by a sincere intention to create substantial impact and to protect the victims, who have already suffered tremendously.

“We approach these matters without any partisan motives 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.”

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

Bank Responses

When requested for a statement 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 will vigorously defend ourselves in this case.”