🔗 Share this article

Over many years, victims of the late financier Jeffrey Epstein have sought justice. At one point, it seemed like they would achieve it.

Ghislaine Maxwell, the financier’s one-time partner, was convicted of sex trafficking in a 2021 trial for her role in the late financier’s sexual abuse of underage females – and sentenced to two decades behind bars.

At the same time, financial firms that had done business with Epstein, while not admitting wrongdoing, agreed to pay hundreds of millions in settlements to victims. Donald Trump even made disclosing the documents related to the Epstein probe part of his campaign platform, and doubled down on his commitment to do so early this year.

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

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

Lawsuits Aim at 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 financial powerhouses illicitly enabled Epstein’s sex trafficking. The suits are helmed by attorney Sigrid McCawley, of a prominent law firm, and lawyer 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 vast fortune and influence, but through financial backing and monetary assistance from both individuals and institutions, including BNY,” one lawsuit states. “Egregiously, the institution had a abundance of knowledge regarding Epstein’s trafficking network but opted for financial gain over safeguarding those harmed.”

The complaint against Bank of America mirrors these claims, declaring the institution “knowingly provided the monetary resources and the appearance of respectability for Epstein and his accomplices to support their international sex trafficking organization under the guise of non-criminal business activities”. The legal action also said Bank of America neglected to file suspicious activity reports.

Legal Experts Offer Perspectives on Legal Hurdles

Experienced lawyers who commented on the situation said establishing liability would be difficult. But they also noted possible outcomes which could provide solace to plaintiffs or disclosure of long-sought information.

Neama Rahmani, a ex-government lawyer who founded West Coast Trial lawyers, said evidence has to show that an institution’s actions resulted in harm.

“I don’t think the lawsuit has much of a chance of success – and clearly I am on the side of the survivors, and I want them to get explanations and legal redress and compensation,” the attorney 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 “but for the defendant’s conduct, the harm wouldn’t have happened”. In this instance, that would boil down to “but for the bank’s conduct, the survivor maybe wouldn’t have been trafficked”, the lawyer explained.

A lawyer would also have to go further than a “but for” measure. “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? It’s uncertain.”

Regardless of legal responsibility, such lawsuits could serve as a warning that relationships with those accused of wrongdoing can have negative consequences for them.

“It’s a PR nightmare,” he said. If the banks try to get these cases thrown out and are unsuccessful, Rahmani expects a swift settlement. “No party desires to pursue any of the legal matters tied to Epstein.”

Eric Faddis, a litigator and principal of the legal practice Varner Faddis and former prosecutor, said corporations can be liable. In this scenario, “if the institutions bear fault is going to depend, in part, on what the banks knew, whether they had any knowledge of claimed misconduct or illegal acts”, and in some way provided assistance to Epstein.

“But even then, I think it’s going to be difficult to sort of loop the financial entities into some kind of sex-trafficking scheme. The institutions would likely not be privy to the particulars of allegations,” Faddis said. While the financier’s prior legal case was known, “it’s not illegal for a financial institution to have a client who’s an unsavory person”.

“However, it is unlawful for a financial firm to somehow be complicit in the illegal actions of a customer, but these aspects are distinct, and so I think that it’s going to be a difficult case against the banks.”

Possible Advantages for Victims

Nevertheless, 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 individuals seeking this information, when there’s a lawsuit, there’s a discovery process, and that discovery process often requires release of materials that was not formerly available.”

Edwards said in a comment that the lawsuits could have a preventive impact and achieve what legislators have been unable to do.

“Legal actions are essential for full accountability for the victims of the financier – 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 criminal enterprise 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 understand the details and background of the case and are not motivated by politics but rather by a genuine desire to create substantial impact and to protect the victims, who have already endured immense pain.

“Our handling of these issues 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.”

Attorney Sigrid McCawley said in a statement: “As Congress works toward unraveling how the financier was able to orchestrate his illegal trafficking operation for decades without detection, we are taking a further significant action forward toward justice for survivors.”

Institutional Reactions

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

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