🔗 Share this article

For years, survivors of the late financier Jeffrey Epstein have demanded accountability. At one point, it appeared 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 involvement in the deceased billionaire’s exploitation of underage females – and sentenced to two decades behind bars.

At the same time, financial firms that had done business with Epstein, while not accepting fault, paid hundreds of millions in settlements to survivors. Former President Trump even made disclosing the Epstein investigative files part of his election promises, and reiterated on his promise to do so early this year.

In the end, the administration’s Department of Justice did not make public these records, and his administration has become embroiled in reports about social ties between him and Epstein. Congressional promises to disclose documents have lagged, due to political jockeying and delays from federal authorities.

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

Legal Actions Aim at Leading Financial Institutions

The legal complaints, filed by an anonymous plaintiff against a major U.S. bank and the Bank of New York Mellon (BNY), claim that these banking giants unlawfully facilitated Epstein’s trafficking ring. The suits are led by Sigrid S McCawley, of Boies Schiller Flexner, and Brad Edwards of Edwards Henderson, who have consistently advocated for Epstein victims.

“The financier carried out these offenses by means of not only his own vast fortune and influence, but through financial backing and monetary assistance from both individuals and organizations, including the bank,” one lawsuit states. “Egregiously, the institution had a abundance of knowledge regarding Epstein’s trafficking network but chose profit over safeguarding those harmed.”

The Bank of America suit mirrors these claims, declaring the institution “deliberately supplied the monetary resources and the veneer of institutional legitimacy for Epstein and his accomplices 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 suspicious activity reports.

Legal Experts Weigh In on Legal Hurdles

Experienced lawyers who commented on the situation said proving such a case would be challenging. But they also noted possible outcomes which could provide solace to accusers or release of long-sought information.

Neama Rahmani, a ex-government lawyer who founded a legal firm, 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 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 causation, which would mean “if not for the bank’s actions, the injury wouldn’t have happened”. In this case, that would boil down to “absent the institution’s involvement, the victim maybe wouldn’t have been trafficked”, Rahmani clarified.

An attorney would also have to go beyond a “but for” measure. “It’s not solely about indirect cause. It also has to be a significant element: that is the legal test. So any improper behavior there was, if there was any misconduct … the bank’s actions has to have been a key contributor in leading to the plaintiff harm.

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

Liability aside, suits like this could serve as a warning that relationships with those accused of wrongdoing can have negative consequences for them.

“It represents a reputational disaster,” Rahmani noted. If the banks try to get these suits dismissed and fail, the attorney expects a quick resolution. “No party desires to pursue any of the Epstein-related cases.”

Attorney Eric Faddis, a litigator and principal of the legal practice Varner Faddis and ex-government lawyer, said companies can be responsible. In this situation, “whether the banks have liability is going to hinge, in part, on what the banks knew, if they were informed of alleged abuse or illegal acts”, and in some way provided assistance to Epstein.

“However, even in that case, I think it’s going to be difficult to sort of loop the banks into some kind of sex-trafficking scheme. The banks would probably not be privy to the particulars of allegations,” Faddis said. While Epstein’s Florida conviction was known, “there’s no law against for a bank 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 customer, but these aspects are distinct, 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 litigation 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 folks pursuing this information, when there’s a legal action, there’s a evidence-gathering phase, and that legal procedure often mandates disclosure of materials that was not previously public.”

Edwards said in a comment that the lawsuits could have a preventive impact and accomplish what lawmakers 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 similar trafficking organizations – if our financial institutions are not held accountable for the essential role each performs, either in supplying the required framework for the illegal operation or recognizing the financial component of these offenses and stopping it.

He added: “We have a far better chance of effecting meaningful change than lawmakers, because we know the details and background of the matter and are not driven by politics but rather by a sincere intention to create substantial impact and to safeguard the survivors, who have already suffered tremendously.

“We approach these matters without any political agenda and thus cannot be deterred 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 declaration: “While legislators attempt to uncover how the financier was able to orchestrate his criminal sex-trafficking enterprise for many years without being caught, we are taking another important step forward toward justice for survivors.”

Institutional Reactions

Asked for comment 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.”