🔗 Share this article

For years, survivors of Jeffrey Epstein have demanded accountability. At one point, it appeared like they would get it.

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

Meanwhile, banks that had done business with Epstein, while not admitting wrongdoing, paid hundreds of millions in agreements to victims. Donald Trump even made disclosing the Epstein investigative files 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 release these records, and his administration has become involved in allegations about personal connections between him and Epstein. Congressional promises to release files have lagged, due to political jockeying and justice department foot-dragging.

But recent legal actions could provide clarity on Epstein’s operations amid the deadlock – regardless of their result.

Legal Actions Aim at Major Banks

The legal complaints, submitted by an anonymous plaintiff against Bank of America and the BNY Mellon, claim that these financial powerhouses illicitly enabled Epstein’s sex trafficking. The suits are led by attorney Sigrid McCawley, of Boies Schiller Flexner, and lawyer 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 extraordinary wealth and power, but through access to funding and monetary assistance from both individuals and institutions, including the bank,” one lawsuit claims. “Egregiously, BNY had a abundance of knowledge regarding Epstein’s sex trafficking operation but opted for financial gain over protecting the victims.”

The complaint against Bank of America echoes these allegations, declaring the institution “deliberately supplied 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 suit also said the bank neglected to file suspicious activity reports.

Attorneys Weigh In on Legal Hurdles

Longtime attorneys who commented on the matter 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 ex-government lawyer 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 victims, and I want them to get answers and legal redress and compensation,” the attorney said. Some claims 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 “if not for the bank’s actions, the harm wouldn’t have happened”. In this case, that would translate to “but for the bank’s conduct, the victim maybe wouldn’t have been exploited”, the lawyer clarified.

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 significant element: that is the legal test. So whatever misconduct there was, if there was any misconduct … the bank’s actions has to have been a key contributor in causing the victim’s suffering.

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

Liability aside, such lawsuits could put institutions on notice that associations with those accused of wrongdoing can have damaging implications for them.

“It’s a PR nightmare,” Rahmani noted. If the financial institutions try to get these suits dismissed and are unsuccessful, the attorney anticipates a quick resolution. “No one wants to go litigate 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 companies can be responsible. In this situation, “if the institutions bear fault is going to depend, in part, on their level of awareness, if they were informed of claimed misconduct or criminal wrongdoing”, and somehow provided assistance to Epstein.

“However, even in that case, I think it’s going to be difficult to effectively connect the banks into some kind of sex-trafficking scheme. The banks would likely not be aware of the particulars of allegations,” the lawyer said. While the financier’s prior legal case was known, “there’s no law against for a financial institution to have a client who’s an disreputable individual”.

“However, it is unlawful for a financial firm to somehow be involved in the criminal activity of a client, 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

Nevertheless, key elements of the litigation could assist Epstein survivors.

“The lawsuits have the potential to reveal more information about the ongoing Epstein saga,” Faddis said. “Despite the fact that there have been sort of walls put up at every turn for folks seeking this information, when there’s a lawsuit, there’s a discovery process, and that discovery process often mandates release of materials that was not formerly available.”

Attorney Brad Edwards said in a statement that the suits could have a preventive impact and achieve what legislators have been unable to do.

“Legal actions are essential for full accountability for the survivors of the financier – as well as for future would-be victims who will suffer from similar trafficking organizations – if our banks are not held accountable for the crucial part each plays, either in providing the required framework for the illegal operation or identifying the monetary aspect of these crimes and stopping it.

Edwards continued: “Our prospects are significantly higher of effecting meaningful change than Congress, because we know the facts and background of the matter and are not motivated by partisan interests but rather by a genuine desire to create substantial impact and to protect the victims, who have already endured immense pain.

“Our handling of these issues without any political agenda and thus will not be swayed by obstructions, shielding influential figures, or the other shameful political maneuvering you and the rest of the world have had to watch unfold recently.”

Attorney Sigrid McCawley said in a declaration: “As Congress works toward unraveling how the financier was able to conduct his illegal trafficking operation for decades without being caught, we are taking another important step forward toward legal resolution for survivors.”

Institutional Reactions

When requested for a statement 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.”

Bank of America’s statement likewise stated: “We will vigorously defend ourselves in this case.”