🔗 Share this article

For years, survivors of Jeffrey Epstein have sought justice. At one point, it appeared like they would achieve it.

Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s ex-girlfriend, was found guilty of sex trafficking four years ago for her involvement in the late financier’s sexual abuse of underage females – and sentenced to two decades behind bars.

Meanwhile, financial firms that had worked with Epstein, although not accepting fault, agreed to pay hundreds of millions in agreements to survivors. Former President 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.

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

However recent legal actions could provide clarity on Epstein’s activities amid the deadlock – regardless of their outcome.

Lawsuits Target Leading Financial Institutions

These lawsuits, submitted by an anonymous plaintiff against a major U.S. bank and the Bank of New York Mellon (BNY), allege that these financial powerhouses illicitly enabled Epstein’s trafficking ring. The cases are led by attorney Sigrid McCawley, of Boies Schiller Flexner, and Brad Edwards of his legal practice, who have long represented survivors of Epstein’s abuse.

“The financier carried out these offenses by means of not only his own vast fortune and power, but through financial backing and monetary assistance from both private parties and organizations, including BNY,” the legal filing states. “Shockingly, the institution had a plethora of information regarding Epstein’s trafficking network but chose profit 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 co-conspirators to fuel their international sex trafficking organization under the guise of legal commercial dealings”. The suit also said the bank failed to file suspicious activity reports.

Legal Experts Offer Perspectives on Legal Hurdles

Longtime attorneys who spoke to the situation said proving such a case would be difficult. But they also identified possible outcomes which could offer comfort to accusers or disclosure of previously hidden details.

Attorney Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor who founded a legal firm, said evidence 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 survivors, and I want them to get answers and criminal justice and compensation,” the attorney said. Some claims might be not directly related from a juridical perspective.

“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 case, that would boil down 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 basic causation test. “Is not just ‘but for’ causation. It also has to be a substantial factor: that is the standard. So whatever misconduct there was, if there was any wrongdoing … the bank’s actions has to have been a key contributor in leading to the victim’s suffering.

“Through maintaining financial ties to Epstein, is that a decisive element? It’s uncertain.”

Liability aside, suits like this could put institutions on notice 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 suits thrown out and fail, Rahmani expects a swift settlement. “No party desires to pursue any of the Epstein-related cases.”

Eric Faddis, a trial attorney and principal of the Colorado law firm Varner Faddis and former prosecutor, said companies can be responsible. In this situation, “if the institutions bear fault is going to hinge, in part, on their level of awareness, if they were informed of claimed misconduct or criminal wrongdoing”, and somehow offered support to Epstein.

“But even then, I think it’s going to be hard to sort of loop the financial entities into some kind of trafficking operation. The institutions 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 client who’s an disreputable individual”.

“However, it is unlawful for a bank to somehow be involved in the criminal activity of a client, but those two issues are very different, and so I think that it’s going to be a difficult case against the institutions.”

Possible Advantages for Victims

That said, important aspects of the litigation could help those affected by Epstein.

“These cases may uncover additional details about the continuing Epstein story,” Faddis said. “Despite the fact that there have been obstacles erected at every turn for folks seeking this data, when there’s a lawsuit, there’s a evidence-gathering phase, and that legal procedure often requires release of information that was not formerly available.”

Attorney Brad Edwards said in a statement that the suits could have a deterrent effect and achieve what legislators have failed to do.

“The lawsuits are necessary for complete justice for the victims of the financier – as well as for future would-be victims who will be harmed from similar trafficking organizations – if our financial institutions are not held accountable for the crucial part each plays, either in supplying the required framework for the illegal operation or recognizing the financial component of these offenses and stopping it.

Edwards continued: “Our prospects are significantly higher of effecting meaningful change than Congress, because we know the facts and history of the matter and are not driven by politics but rather by a genuine desire to make a real difference and to safeguard the victims, who have already endured immense pain.

“We approach these matters without any partisan motives and thus will not be swayed by shutdowns, protecting wealthy politically connected individuals, 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: “While legislators attempt to uncover how the financier was able to conduct his criminal sex-trafficking enterprise for decades without detection, we are taking another important step forward toward legal resolution for survivors.”

Institutional Reactions

Asked for comment on the legal complaint, BNY said: “The claims in the lawsuit are meritless, and we will strongly contest against it.”

Bank of America’s statement likewise stated: “We will vigorously defend ourselves in this case.”