🔗 Share this article

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

Epstein’s former associate Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s ex-girlfriend, was found guilty of human trafficking in a 2021 trial for her involvement in the late financier’s exploitation of teen girls – and sentenced to two decades behind bars.

Meanwhile, financial firms that had done business with Epstein, while not admitting wrongdoing, paid substantial sums in settlements to survivors. Former President Trump even made releasing the Epstein investigative files 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 involved in reports about personal connections between him and Epstein. Assurances from lawmakers to release files have stalled, due to political jockeying and delays from federal authorities.

But two new lawsuits could provide clarity on Epstein’s operations amid the deadlock – regardless of their outcome.

Lawsuits Target Leading Financial Institutions

These lawsuits, submitted by an unnamed accuser against Bank of America and the BNY Mellon, claim that these banking giants unlawfully facilitated Epstein’s sex trafficking. The suits are helmed by Sigrid S McCawley, of a prominent law firm, and Brad Edwards of his legal practice, who have long represented Epstein victims.

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

The Bank of America suit mirrors these claims, declaring the institution “knowingly provided the monetary resources and the appearance of respectability for Epstein and his accomplices to support their global trafficking enterprise under the guise of legal commercial dealings”. The suit also said Bank of America neglected to file suspicious activity reports.

Attorneys Weigh In on Legal Hurdles

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

Neama Rahmani, a ex-government lawyer who established West Coast Trial lawyers, said proof has to show that an institution’s actions 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 legal redress and compensation,” Rahmani said. Certain allegations might be not directly related from a legal standpoint.

“It all comes down to evidence,” Rahmani said. A attorney would need to prove cause and effect, which would mean “but for the defendant’s conduct, the injury wouldn’t have occurred”. In this instance, that would boil down to “absent the institution’s involvement, the victim maybe wouldn’t have been trafficked”, 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 wrongdoing … the defendant’s misconduct has to have been a key contributor in causing the plaintiff harm.

“By engaging in a business relationship with Epstein, is that a decisive element? I don’t know.”

Liability aside, suits like this could put institutions on notice that associations with those involved in alleged crimes can have negative consequences for them.

“It’s a PR nightmare,” Rahmani noted. If the financial institutions try to get these suits thrown out and are unsuccessful, Rahmani anticipates a quick resolution. “No one wants to go litigate any of the legal matters tied to Epstein.”

Attorney Eric Faddis, a trial attorney and founder of the legal practice his firm and former prosecutor, said corporations can be liable. In this situation, “if the institutions bear fault is going to depend, in part, on what the banks knew, if they were informed of claimed misconduct or criminal wrongdoing”, and somehow provided assistance to Epstein.

“But even then, I think it’s going to be difficult to effectively connect the financial entities into some kind of trafficking operation. The institutions would probably not be aware of the particulars of allegations,” the lawyer said. While the financier’s prior legal case was public, “there’s no law against for a financial institution to have a client who’s an disreputable individual”.

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

Potential Benefits for Victims

Nevertheless, key elements of the litigation could help those affected by Epstein.

“These cases may uncover additional details about the continuing Epstein story,” the attorney said. “Despite the fact that there have been sort of walls put up at every turn for individuals seeking this data, when there’s a lawsuit, there’s a discovery process, and that discovery process often requires release of materials that was not previously public.”

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

“The lawsuits are necessary for complete justice for the survivors of Jeffrey Epstein – as well as for future would-be victims who will be harmed from comparable criminal networks – if our financial institutions are not held accountable for the essential role each plays, either in providing the required framework for the illegal operation or identifying the monetary aspect of these offenses and stopping it.

Edwards continued: “We have a far better chance of making a real difference than Congress, because we know the facts and history of the matter and are not driven by politics but rather by a sincere intention to create substantial impact and to safeguard the victims, who have already endured immense pain.

“We approach these matters without any political agenda 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.”

McCawley said in a statement: “As Congress works toward unraveling how the financier was able to orchestrate his criminal sex-trafficking enterprise for many years without being caught, we are taking another important step forward toward legal resolution for survivors.”

Bank Responses

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

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