🔗 Share this article

Over many years, victims of Jeffrey Epstein have sought accountability. 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 in a 2021 trial for her role in the late financier’s sexual abuse of teen girls – and given to 20 years imprisonment.

At the same time, banks that had worked with Epstein, while not admitting wrongdoing, paid substantial sums in settlements to victims. Donald Trump even made disclosing the Epstein investigative files part of his campaign platform, and reiterated on his commitment to do so early this year.

Ultimately, Trump’s justice department did not make public these records, and his government has become involved in allegations about personal connections between him and Epstein. Congressional promises to release files have lagged, due to partisan maneuvering and justice department foot-dragging.

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

Lawsuits Aim at Major Banks

These lawsuits, submitted by an unnamed accuser against Bank of America and the BNY Mellon, claim that these banking giants illicitly enabled Epstein’s sex trafficking. The cases are led by Sigrid S McCawley, of Boies Schiller Flexner, and Brad Edwards of his legal practice, who have long represented Epstein victims.

“The financier carried out these offenses by means of not only his own extraordinary wealth and influence, but through access to funding and monetary assistance from both private parties and organizations, including the bank,” the legal filing claims. “Egregiously, the institution had a plethora of information regarding Epstein’s sex trafficking operation but chose profit over protecting the victims.”

The Bank of America suit mirrors these claims, asserting the institution “knowingly provided the monetary resources and the appearance of respectability for Epstein and his co-conspirators to fuel their international sex trafficking organization under the pretext of non-criminal business activities”. The legal action also said the bank failed to file mandatory financial alerts.

Attorneys Offer Perspectives on Case Challenges

Longtime attorneys who commented on the situation said proving such a case would be challenging. But they also noted potential results which could offer comfort to accusers or disclosure of previously hidden details.

Attorney Neama Rahmani, a ex-government lawyer who founded a legal firm, said proof has to show that an institution’s actions resulted in 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 criminal justice 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 attorney would need to prove cause and effect, which would mean “if not for the bank’s actions, the harm wouldn’t have occurred”. In this instance, that would boil down to “but for the bank’s conduct, the survivor maybe wouldn’t have been trafficked”, 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 significant element: that is the legal test. So whatever misconduct there was, if there was any wrongdoing … the bank’s actions has to have been a key contributor in leading to the victim’s suffering.

“By engaging in a business relationship with Epstein, is that a decisive element? It’s uncertain.”

Regardless of legal responsibility, suits like this could serve as a warning that relationships 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, the attorney expects a quick resolution. “No one wants to go litigate any of the legal matters tied to Epstein.”

Attorney Eric Faddis, a litigator and principal of the Colorado law firm Varner Faddis and former prosecutor, said corporations can be liable. In this situation, “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 somehow offered support to Epstein.

“But even then, I think it’s going to be difficult to effectively connect the banks into some kind of trafficking operation. The banks would likely not be aware of the particulars of claims,” Faddis said. While Epstein’s Florida conviction was public, “it’s not illegal for a bank to have a customer who’s an disreputable individual”.

“However, it is unlawful for a financial firm to somehow be involved in the criminal activity of a customer, but those two issues are distinct, and so I think that it’s going to be a tough lawsuit against the banks.”

Possible Advantages for Survivors

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

“The lawsuits have the potential to reveal more information about the ongoing Epstein saga,” Faddis said. “Even though there have been sort of walls put up at every turn for individuals seeking this data, when there’s a lawsuit, there’s a evidence-gathering phase, and that discovery process often requires disclosure of materials that was not formerly available.”

Attorney Brad Edwards said in a comment that the lawsuits could have a deterrent effect and accomplish what legislators have failed to do.

“The lawsuits are necessary for complete justice for the victims of the financier – as well as for potential targets who will be harmed from comparable criminal networks – if our banks are not held accountable for the essential role each plays, either in providing the required framework for the criminal enterprise or identifying the monetary aspect of these offenses and putting an end to it.

Edwards continued: “We have a far better chance of effecting meaningful change than lawmakers, because we know the facts and background of the case and are not driven by politics but rather by a sincere intention to make a real difference and to protect the victims, who have already endured immense pain.

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

McCawley said in a statement: “While legislators attempt to uncover how the financier was able to conduct his criminal sex-trafficking enterprise for many years without being caught, we are taking a further significant action forward toward justice for survivors.”

Institutional Reactions

Asked for comment on the lawsuit, the Bank of New York Mellon said: “The claims in the lawsuit are meritless, and we will strongly contest against it.”

Bank of America’s statement similarly remarked: “We intend to firmly protect our interests in this case.”