🔗 Share this article

Over many years, victims of Jeffrey Epstein have sought accountability. At one point, it seemed like they would get it.

Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s ex-girlfriend, was convicted of human trafficking four years ago for her involvement in the deceased billionaire’s sexual abuse of teen girls – and sentenced to two decades behind bars.

Meanwhile, banks that had done business with Epstein, although not accepting fault, agreed to pay substantial sums in agreements to survivors. Former President Trump even made releasing the documents related to the Epstein probe part of his election promises, and doubled down on his promise to do so early this year.

In the end, Trump’s justice department did not release these records, and his administration has become involved in allegations about social ties between him and Epstein. Assurances from lawmakers to disclose documents have stalled, due to political jockeying and justice department foot-dragging.

However two new lawsuits could shed light on Epstein’s operations amid the deadlock – irrespective of their result.

Lawsuits Target Major Banks

These lawsuits, filed by an unnamed accuser against a major U.S. bank and the BNY Mellon, allege that these financial powerhouses illicitly enabled Epstein’s sex trafficking. The cases are led by Sigrid S McCawley, of a prominent law firm, and lawyer Brad Edwards of his legal practice, 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 financial support from both private parties and organizations, including the bank,” one lawsuit states. “Shockingly, BNY had a plethora of information regarding Epstein’s sex trafficking operation but chose profit over protecting the victims.”

The Bank of America suit echoes these allegations, asserting the institution “knowingly provided the financial support 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 mandatory financial alerts.

Attorneys Offer Perspectives on Legal Hurdles

Longtime attorneys who commented on the situation said establishing liability would be challenging. But they also identified possible outcomes which could offer comfort to accusers or release of previously hidden details.

Attorney Neama Rahmani, a ex-government lawyer who established West Coast Trial lawyers, said proof has to show that an bank’s conduct resulted in harm.

“In my view, the case faces significant obstacles – and obviously I am on the side of the victims, 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.

“It all comes down to evidence,” he said. A lawyer 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 boil down to “but for the bank’s conduct, the survivor maybe wouldn’t have been trafficked”, the lawyer clarified.

A lawyer would also have to go beyond a basic causation test. “Is not just ‘but for’ causation. It also has to be a significant element: that is the standard. So any improper behavior there was, if there was any wrongdoing … 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? I don’t know.”

Liability aside, such lawsuits 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 thrown out and fail, Rahmani anticipates a swift settlement. “No one wants to go litigate any of the Epstein-related cases.”

Attorney Eric Faddis, a trial attorney 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 depend, in part, on their level of awareness, whether they had any knowledge of claimed misconduct or criminal wrongdoing”, and somehow provided assistance to Epstein.

“However, even in that case, I think it’s going to be hard to effectively connect the banks into some kind of sex-trafficking scheme. The institutions would likely not be aware of the particulars of claims,” Faddis said. While the financier’s prior legal case was known, “there’s no law against for a financial institution to have a customer who’s an unsavory person”.

“It is illegal for a bank to somehow be involved in the criminal activity of a customer, but these aspects are distinct, and so I think that it’s going to be a tough lawsuit against the institutions.”

Possible Advantages for Survivors

Nevertheless, important aspects of the litigation could help 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 sort of walls put up at every turn for folks seeking this data, when there’s a legal action, there’s a evidence-gathering phase, and that discovery process often requires disclosure of information that was not previously public.”

Edwards said in a statement that the lawsuits could have a deterrent effect and accomplish what legislators have been unable to do.

“Legal actions are essential for full accountability for the victims of Jeffrey Epstein – as well as for future would-be victims who will suffer from comparable criminal networks – if our financial institutions are not made responsible for the crucial part each performs, either in supplying the required framework for the criminal enterprise or identifying the monetary aspect of these crimes and stopping it.

Edwards continued: “Our prospects are significantly higher of making a real difference than Congress, because we know the details and history of the matter and are not driven by politics but rather by a sincere intention to create substantial impact and to protect the survivors, who have already suffered tremendously.

“We approach these matters without any partisan motives and thus cannot be deterred by obstructions, protecting wealthy politically connected individuals, or the other shameful political maneuvering you and the rest of the world have had to observe recently.”

McCawley said in a declaration: “As Congress works toward unraveling how the financier was able to orchestrate his illegal trafficking operation for decades without detection, we are taking another important step forward toward legal resolution for victims.”

Bank Responses

Asked for comment on the legal complaint, BNY 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.”