🔗 Share this article

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

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

Meanwhile, banks that had worked with Epstein, while not admitting wrongdoing, paid hundreds of millions in settlements to survivors. Donald Trump even made releasing the documents related to the Epstein probe part of his campaign platform, and reiterated on his promise to do so in recent months.

In the end, Trump’s justice department did not release these files, and his administration has become involved in reports about social ties between him and Epstein. Congressional promises to release files have stalled, due to political jockeying and justice department foot-dragging.

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

Legal Actions Aim at Leading Financial Institutions

The legal complaints, submitted by an unnamed accuser against Bank of America and the BNY Mellon, allege that these financial powerhouses illicitly enabled Epstein’s trafficking ring. The cases are helmed by Sigrid S 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 private parties and organizations, including BNY,” one lawsuit claims. “Egregiously, the institution had a plethora of information regarding Epstein’s trafficking network but chose profit over safeguarding those harmed.”

The Bank of America suit echoes these allegations, asserting the institution “knowingly provided the monetary resources and the appearance of respectability for Epstein and his accomplices to support their global trafficking enterprise under the guise of non-criminal business activities”. The suit also said the bank failed to file suspicious activity reports.

Attorneys Weigh In on Case Challenges

Experienced lawyers who commented on the situation said proving such a case would be challenging. But they also noted potential results which could provide solace to plaintiffs or release of previously hidden details.

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 explanations and legal redress and financial recovery,” Rahmani said. Certain allegations might be too tangential from a legal standpoint.

“The case hinges on proof,” 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 occurred”. In this instance, that would boil down to “absent the institution’s involvement, the survivor maybe wouldn’t have been exploited”, the lawyer 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 standard. So whatever misconduct there was, if there was any wrongdoing … the defendant’s misconduct has to have been a key contributor in leading to the plaintiff harm.

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

Regardless of legal responsibility, such lawsuits could put institutions on notice that associations with those involved in alleged crimes can have negative consequences for them.

“It’s a PR nightmare,” he said. If the banks try to get these cases thrown out and fail, the attorney anticipates a swift settlement. “No party desires to pursue any of the Epstein-related cases.”

Eric Faddis, a trial attorney and founder of the Colorado law firm his firm and ex-government lawyer, said companies can be liable. In this scenario, “if the institutions bear fault is going to depend, in part, on what the banks knew, if they were informed of alleged abuse or criminal wrongdoing”, and in some way offered support to Epstein.

“But even then, I think it’s going to be hard to effectively connect the financial entities into some kind of trafficking operation. The institutions would probably not be aware of the particulars of allegations,” Faddis said. While the financier’s prior legal case was public, “it’s not illegal for a bank to have a customer who’s an disreputable individual”.

“However, it is unlawful for a bank to in any way be complicit in the criminal activity of a customer, but these aspects are very different, and so I think that it’s going to be a tough lawsuit against the institutions.”

Possible Advantages for Victims

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

“The lawsuits have the potential to reveal more information about the continuing Epstein story,” the attorney 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 discovery process often requires disclosure of information that was not previously public.”

Attorney Brad Edwards said in a comment that the lawsuits could have a preventive impact and achieve what legislators have failed to do.

“Legal actions are essential for full accountability for the victims of Jeffrey Epstein – as well as for potential targets who will suffer from similar trafficking organizations – if our financial institutions are not made responsible for the essential role each plays, either in supplying the required framework for the illegal operation or identifying the monetary aspect of these crimes and putting an end to it.

Edwards continued: “We have a far better chance of making a real difference than Congress, because we know the details and history of the matter and are not motivated by politics but rather by a genuine desire to create substantial impact and to safeguard the survivors, who have already endured immense pain.

“We approach these matters without any political agenda and thus cannot be deterred by obstructions, shielding influential figures, or the other embarrassing partisan gamesmanship you and the rest of the world have had to watch unfold recently.”

Attorney Sigrid McCawley said in a declaration: “While legislators attempt to uncover how the financier was able to conduct his illegal trafficking operation for many years without detection, we are taking another important step forward toward justice for survivors.”

Bank Responses

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

The bank’s response likewise stated: “We will vigorously defend ourselves in this case.”