🔗 Share this article

For years, victims of Jeffrey Epstein have sought justice. For a while, it appeared like they would get it.

Ghislaine Maxwell, the financier’s one-time partner, was convicted of human trafficking four years ago for her role in the deceased billionaire’s sexual abuse of underage females – and sentenced to two decades behind bars.

Meanwhile, banks that had done business with Epstein, although not accepting fault, paid substantial sums in settlements to victims. Donald Trump even made releasing the documents related to the Epstein probe part of his campaign platform, and doubled down 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 government has become involved in reports about personal connections between him and Epstein. Congressional promises to release files have lagged, due to partisan maneuvering and delays from federal authorities.

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

Lawsuits Aim at Leading Financial Institutions

These lawsuits, filed by an anonymous plaintiff against a major U.S. bank and the BNY Mellon, allege that these financial powerhouses illicitly enabled Epstein’s sex trafficking. The suits are helmed by Sigrid S McCawley, of a prominent law firm, and lawyer Brad Edwards of Edwards Henderson, who have long represented Epstein victims.

“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 individuals and organizations, including the bank,” the legal filing states. “Egregiously, BNY 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, declaring the institution “knowingly provided 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 legal commercial dealings”. The suit also said the bank failed to file mandatory financial alerts.

Attorneys Weigh In on Legal Hurdles

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

Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor who founded West Coast Trial lawyers, said evidence has to show that an institution’s actions led to harm.

“I don’t think the lawsuit has much of a chance of success – and clearly I am on the side of the victims, and I want them to get explanations and criminal justice and financial recovery,” Rahmani said. Certain allegations might be not directly related from a legal standpoint.

“The case hinges on proof,” 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 translate to “but for the bank’s conduct, the victim maybe wouldn’t have been trafficked”, Rahmani clarified.

A lawyer 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 any improper behavior 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.”

Liability aside, such lawsuits could serve as a warning that associations with those accused of wrongdoing can have damaging implications for them.

“It represents a reputational disaster,” Rahmani noted. If the banks try to get these cases thrown out and fail, Rahmani anticipates a quick resolution. “No party desires to pursue 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 corporations 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 claimed misconduct or illegal acts”, and somehow offered support to Epstein.

“However, even in that case, I think it’s going to be hard to effectively connect the banks into some kind of trafficking operation. The institutions would probably not be aware of the details of allegations,” the lawyer said. While Epstein’s Florida conviction was public, “there’s no law against for a financial institution to have a client who’s an unsavory person”.

“It is illegal for a bank to somehow be involved in the illegal actions 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 banks.”

Potential Benefits for Victims

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

“The lawsuits have the potential to reveal more information about the continuing Epstein story,” Faddis said. “Even though there have been sort of walls put up at every turn for folks pursuing this data, when there’s a lawsuit, there’s a discovery process, and that discovery process often requires disclosure of materials that was not previously public.”

Edwards said in a statement that the suits could have a preventive impact and accomplish what legislators have failed to do.

“Legal actions are essential for full accountability for the victims of the financier – as well as for future would-be victims who will be harmed from comparable criminal networks – if our financial institutions are not made responsible for the crucial part each plays, either in providing the required framework for the criminal enterprise or identifying the financial component of these offenses and putting an end to it.

He added: “We have a far better chance of effecting meaningful change than Congress, because we know the details and background of the case and are not driven by politics but rather by a genuine desire 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 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 detection, we are taking a further significant action forward toward legal resolution for survivors.”

Institutional Reactions

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

The bank’s response similarly remarked: “We intend to firmly protect our interests in this case.”