🔗 Share this article

Over many years, victims 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, Epstein’s ex-girlfriend, was found guilty of human trafficking in a 2021 trial for her role in the deceased billionaire’s exploitation of underage females – and sentenced to 20 years imprisonment.

Meanwhile, banks that had done business with Epstein, although not accepting fault, paid hundreds of millions in agreements to survivors. Donald Trump even made releasing the documents related to the Epstein probe part of his campaign platform, and reiterated on his commitment to do so in recent months.

In the end, Trump’s justice department did not release these files, and his government has become involved in reports about personal connections between him and Epstein. Assurances from lawmakers to disclose documents have stalled, due to political jockeying and justice department foot-dragging.

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

Legal Actions Aim at Major Banks

The legal complaints, submitted by an unnamed accuser against a major U.S. bank and the BNY Mellon, claim that these financial powerhouses illicitly enabled Epstein’s sex trafficking. The suits are helmed by attorney Sigrid McCawley, of a prominent law firm, and Brad Edwards of his legal practice, who have consistently advocated for survivors of Epstein’s abuse.

“Epstein committed these crimes by means of not only his own extraordinary wealth and power, but through access to funding and monetary assistance from both individuals and organizations, including BNY,” the legal filing claims. “Shockingly, BNY had a plethora of information regarding Epstein’s sex trafficking operation but opted for financial gain over safeguarding those harmed.”

The Bank of America suit mirrors these claims, asserting the institution “deliberately supplied the financial support and the appearance of respectability for Epstein and his accomplices to fuel their international sex trafficking organization under the guise of non-criminal business activities”. The legal action also said Bank of America failed to file mandatory financial alerts.

Attorneys Weigh In on Legal Hurdles

Experienced lawyers who commented on the situation said establishing liability would be difficult. But they also noted potential results which could provide solace to accusers or disclosure of previously hidden details.

Attorney Neama Rahmani, a ex-government lawyer who established a legal firm, said evidence has to show that an institution’s actions resulted in 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 not directly related from a legal standpoint.

“The case hinges on proof,” he said. A attorney would need to prove causation, which would mean “if not for the bank’s actions, the harm wouldn’t have occurred”. In this instance, that would boil down to “but for the bank’s conduct, the survivor maybe wouldn’t have been exploited”, the lawyer clarified.

A lawyer would also have to go further than a basic causation test. “It’s not solely about indirect cause. It also has to be a significant element: that is the standard. So any improper behavior there was, if there was any misconduct … the bank’s actions has to have been a substantial factor in leading to the plaintiff harm.

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

Liability aside, such lawsuits could put institutions on notice that associations with those accused of wrongdoing can have damaging implications for them.

“It represents a reputational disaster,” he said. If the financial institutions try to get these cases thrown out and are unsuccessful, the attorney anticipates a swift settlement. “No party desires to pursue any of the Epstein-related cases.”

Attorney Eric Faddis, a trial attorney and founder of the legal practice Varner Faddis and ex-government lawyer, said corporations can be liable. In this scenario, “whether the banks have liability is going to hinge, in part, on their level of awareness, whether they had any knowledge of claimed misconduct or illegal acts”, and in some way 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 banks would probably not be aware of the particulars of allegations,” the lawyer said. While Epstein’s Florida conviction was public, “it’s not illegal for a bank to have a client who’s an unsavory person”.

“It is illegal for a financial firm to somehow 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 Survivors

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

“These cases may uncover additional details about the continuing Epstein story,” the attorney said. “Despite the fact that there have been obstacles erected at every turn for individuals pursuing this information, when there’s a lawsuit, there’s a discovery process, and that legal procedure often mandates disclosure of materials that was not previously public.”

Attorney Brad Edwards said in a statement that the suits could have a preventive impact and accomplish what legislators have been unable to do.

“Legal actions are essential for full accountability for the survivors of Jeffrey Epstein – as well as for potential targets who will suffer from similar trafficking organizations – if our banks are not held accountable for the crucial part each plays, either in supplying the required framework for the illegal operation or identifying the monetary aspect of these offenses and stopping it.

He added: “Our prospects are significantly higher of effecting meaningful change than Congress, because we know the facts and history of the case and are not motivated by partisan interests but rather by a genuine desire to create substantial impact and to protect the victims, 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 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 Jeffrey Epstein was able to orchestrate his criminal sex-trafficking enterprise for decades without being caught, we are taking a further significant action forward toward justice for survivors.”

Bank Responses

When requested for a statement on the legal complaint, BNY said: “The allegations in the case are baseless, and we will vigorously defend against it.”

Bank of America’s statement similarly remarked: “We intend to firmly protect our interests in this case.”