🔗 Share this article

Over many years, survivors of Jeffrey Epstein have demanded accountability. At one point, it seemed like they would achieve it.

Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s ex-girlfriend, was found guilty of human trafficking in a 2021 trial for her involvement in the deceased billionaire’s sexual abuse of teen girls – and given to 20 years imprisonment.

Meanwhile, financial firms that had worked with Epstein, although not accepting fault, agreed to pay substantial sums in agreements to victims. Former President Trump even made releasing the documents related to the Epstein probe part of his election promises, and reiterated on his commitment to do so in recent months.

In the end, the administration’s Department of Justice did not make public these records, and his administration has become involved in allegations about social ties between him and Epstein. Congressional promises to disclose documents have stalled, due to partisan maneuvering and justice department foot-dragging.

However recent legal actions could shed light on Epstein’s operations amid the stalemate – irrespective of their result.

Lawsuits Target Leading Financial Institutions

The legal complaints, filed by an unnamed accuser against a major U.S. bank and the Bank of New York Mellon (BNY), allege that these banking giants illicitly enabled Epstein’s trafficking ring. 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 power, but through access to funding and monetary assistance from both private parties and institutions, including the bank,” one lawsuit states. “Shockingly, the institution had a abundance of knowledge regarding Epstein’s trafficking network but chose profit over safeguarding those harmed.”

The complaint against Bank of America echoes these allegations, asserting the institution “deliberately supplied the monetary resources and the veneer of institutional legitimacy for Epstein and his co-conspirators to support their global trafficking enterprise under the guise of non-criminal business activities”. The legal action also said the bank failed to file suspicious activity reports.

Attorneys Offer Perspectives on Legal Hurdles

Experienced lawyers who spoke to the matter said proving such a case would be difficult. But they also noted possible outcomes which could offer comfort to plaintiffs or release of long-sought information.

Attorney Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor who established West Coast Trial lawyers, said evidence has to show that an bank’s conduct resulted in 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 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 attorney would need to prove cause and effect, which would mean “but for the defendant’s conduct, the injury wouldn’t have occurred”. In this case, that would translate to “but for the bank’s conduct, the victim maybe wouldn’t have been exploited”, the lawyer clarified.

A lawyer 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 misconduct … the defendant’s misconduct has to have been a substantial factor in causing the victim’s suffering.

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

Liability aside, suits like this could put institutions on notice that relationships with those accused of wrongdoing can have damaging implications for them.

“It’s a PR nightmare,” he said. If the financial institutions try to get these suits dismissed and are unsuccessful, Rahmani expects a swift settlement. “No one wants to go litigate any of the Epstein-related cases.”

Eric Faddis, a trial attorney and founder of the legal practice Varner Faddis and ex-government lawyer, said companies can be liable. 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 offered support 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 trafficking operation. The institutions would likely not be privy to the particulars of claims,” the lawyer said. While the financier’s prior legal case was known, “it’s not illegal for a financial institution to have a customer who’s an unsavory person”.

“It is illegal for a financial firm to in any way be involved in the illegal actions of a client, 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 Victims

Nevertheless, important aspects of the legal proceedings could help Epstein survivors.

“These cases may uncover additional details about the ongoing Epstein saga,” Faddis said. “Even though there have been sort of walls put up at every turn for individuals seeking this information, when there’s a legal action, there’s a evidence-gathering phase, and that legal procedure often mandates release 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 lawmakers have failed to do.

“Legal actions are essential for full accountability for the survivors of the financier – as well as for potential targets who will suffer from similar trafficking organizations – if our financial institutions are not held accountable for the crucial part each performs, either in supplying the necessary infrastructure for the illegal operation or identifying the financial component of these offenses and putting an end to it.

He added: “Our prospects are significantly higher of making a real difference than Congress, because we understand the details and history of the case and are not driven by politics but rather by a sincere intention to create substantial impact and to protect the survivors, who have already endured immense pain.

“We approach these matters without any political agenda and thus will not be swayed by shutdowns, 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 statement: “As Congress works toward unraveling how Jeffrey Epstein was able to conduct his illegal trafficking operation for many years without being caught, we are taking a further significant action forward toward legal resolution for victims.”

Institutional Reactions

When requested for a statement on the legal complaint, the Bank of New York Mellon said: “The claims in the lawsuit are meritless, and we will vigorously defend against it.”

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