🔗 Share this article

For years, survivors of Jeffrey Epstein have demanded justice. For a while, it appeared like they would achieve it.

Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s ex-girlfriend, was convicted of sex 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 victims. 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 in recent months.

Ultimately, Trump’s justice department did not release these records, and his government has become involved in allegations about social ties between him and Epstein. Assurances from lawmakers to release files have stalled, due to partisan maneuvering and justice department foot-dragging.

However recent legal actions could provide clarity on Epstein’s operations amid the deadlock – irrespective of their result.

Legal Actions Target Major Banks

The legal complaints, submitted by an anonymous plaintiff against Bank of America and the BNY Mellon, allege that these financial powerhouses illicitly enabled Epstein’s sex trafficking. The cases are led by attorney Sigrid McCawley, of Boies Schiller Flexner, and lawyer Brad Edwards of his legal practice, who have consistently advocated for Epstein victims.

“Epstein committed these crimes by means of not only his own vast fortune and power, but through access to funding and financial support from both private parties and organizations, including the bank,” the legal filing claims. “Shockingly, BNY had a abundance of knowledge regarding Epstein’s sex trafficking operation but opted for financial gain over safeguarding those harmed.”

The complaint against Bank of America mirrors these claims, declaring the institution “deliberately supplied 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 non-criminal business activities”. The legal action also said Bank of America neglected to file suspicious activity reports.

Attorneys Weigh In on Case Challenges

Longtime attorneys who spoke to the situation said proving such a case would be challenging. But they also identified potential results which could offer comfort to plaintiffs or release of previously hidden details.

Attorney Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor who established a legal firm, said proof has to show that an institution’s actions led to harm.

“In my view, the case faces significant obstacles – and obviously I am on the side of the survivors, and I want them to get explanations and criminal justice and financial recovery,” the attorney said. Some claims might be not directly related from a juridical perspective.

“It all comes down to evidence,” Rahmani said. A attorney would need to prove causation, which would mean “if not for the bank’s actions, the injury wouldn’t have occurred”. In this instance, that would translate to “absent the institution’s involvement, the victim maybe wouldn’t have been exploited”, Rahmani clarified.

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 substantial factor: that is the legal test. So whatever misconduct there was, if there was any wrongdoing … the bank’s actions has to have been a substantial factor in causing the victim’s suffering.

“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 associations with those involved in alleged crimes can have negative consequences for them.

“It represents a reputational disaster,” Rahmani noted. If the banks try to get these suits dismissed and fail, the attorney anticipates a quick resolution. “No party desires to pursue any of the legal matters tied to Epstein.”

Attorney Eric Faddis, a litigator and principal of the legal practice Varner Faddis and ex-government lawyer, said companies can be responsible. In this scenario, “if the institutions bear fault is going to depend, in part, on what the banks knew, if they were informed of alleged abuse or criminal wrongdoing”, and in some way 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 sex-trafficking scheme. The banks would likely not be privy to the particulars of claims,” Faddis said. While Epstein’s Florida conviction was public, “there’s no law against for a financial institution to have a customer who’s an disreputable individual”.

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

Possible Advantages for Survivors

That said, key elements of the legal proceedings could assist 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 folks seeking this information, when there’s a legal action, there’s a evidence-gathering phase, and that legal procedure often mandates disclosure of materials that was not formerly available.”

Attorney Brad Edwards said in a comment that the suits could have a preventive impact and achieve what legislators have failed to do.

“Legal actions are essential for full accountability for the survivors of the financier – as well as for future would-be victims who will be harmed from similar trafficking organizations – if our banks are not made responsible for the crucial part each performs, either in providing the necessary infrastructure for the illegal operation or identifying the financial component of these offenses and stopping it.

He added: “Our prospects are significantly higher of effecting meaningful change than lawmakers, because we understand the facts and background of the matter and are not driven by partisan interests but rather by a sincere intention to create substantial impact and to safeguard the victims, who have already suffered tremendously.

“We approach these matters without any political agenda and thus will not be swayed by obstructions, shielding influential figures, or the other shameful political maneuvering 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 the financier was able to orchestrate his illegal trafficking operation for decades without being caught, we are taking a further significant action forward toward justice for victims.”

Bank Responses

Asked for comment on the legal complaint, the Bank of New York Mellon said: “The allegations in the case are baseless, and we will strongly contest against it.”

The bank’s response likewise stated: “We will vigorously defend ourselves in this matter.”