🔗 Share this article

For years, victims of Jeffrey Epstein have sought accountability. At one point, it seemed like they would achieve it.

Ghislaine Maxwell, the financier’s one-time partner, was found guilty of sex trafficking in a 2021 trial for her role in the deceased billionaire’s exploitation of teen girls – and sentenced to 20 years imprisonment.

Meanwhile, banks that had done business with Epstein, while not accepting fault, agreed to pay hundreds of millions in settlements to victims. 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 involved in reports about social ties between him and Epstein. Assurances from lawmakers to disclose documents have lagged, due to political jockeying and justice department foot-dragging.

However two new lawsuits could provide clarity on Epstein’s operations amid the stalemate – regardless of their result.

Lawsuits Target Major Banks

These lawsuits, filed by an unnamed accuser against a major U.S. bank and the BNY Mellon, allege that these banking giants unlawfully facilitated Epstein’s sex trafficking. The cases are helmed by attorney Sigrid McCawley, of a prominent law firm, and Brad Edwards of Edwards Henderson, who have consistently advocated for survivors of Epstein’s abuse.

“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 institutions, including the bank,” the legal filing claims. “Egregiously, the institution had a abundance of knowledge regarding Epstein’s sex trafficking operation but opted for financial gain over protecting the victims.”

The complaint against Bank of America mirrors these claims, declaring the institution “knowingly provided the financial support and the veneer of institutional legitimacy for Epstein and his accomplices to support their international sex trafficking organization under the guise of legal commercial dealings”. The suit also said Bank of America neglected to file mandatory financial alerts.

Attorneys Offer Perspectives on Case Challenges

Longtime attorneys who spoke to the matter said proving such a case would be challenging. But they also noted possible outcomes which could provide solace to plaintiffs or disclosure of previously hidden details.

Attorney Neama Rahmani, a ex-government lawyer who established a legal firm, said proof has to show that an bank’s conduct 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 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 causation, which would mean “but for the defendant’s conduct, the injury wouldn’t have happened”. In this instance, that would boil down to “absent the institution’s involvement, the survivor maybe wouldn’t have been exploited”, Rahmani clarified.

A lawyer would also have to go beyond a basic causation test. “It’s not solely about indirect cause. It also has to be a substantial factor: 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 leading to the victim’s suffering.

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

Regardless of legal responsibility, suits like this could serve as a warning that relationships with those involved in alleged crimes can have damaging implications for them.

“It represents a reputational disaster,” Rahmani noted. If the financial institutions try to get these cases thrown out and are unsuccessful, the attorney anticipates a swift settlement. “No one wants to go litigate any of the Epstein-related cases.”

Eric Faddis, a trial attorney and founder of the legal practice Varner Faddis and former prosecutor, said corporations can be responsible. In this situation, “if the institutions bear fault is going to hinge, in part, on their level of awareness, whether they had any knowledge of alleged abuse or criminal wrongdoing”, and in some way provided assistance to Epstein.

“But even then, I think it’s going to be hard to sort of loop the banks into some kind of sex-trafficking scheme. The banks would likely not be aware of the particulars of allegations,” the lawyer said. While the financier’s prior legal case was public, “it’s not illegal for a bank to have a client who’s an disreputable individual”.

“It is illegal for a financial firm to somehow be involved in the illegal actions of a customer, but those two issues are distinct, and so I think that it’s going to be a difficult case against the institutions.”

Possible Advantages for Survivors

Nevertheless, key elements of the litigation could help Epstein survivors.

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

Edwards said in a comment that the suits could have a deterrent effect and accomplish what legislators have been unable to do.

“Legal actions are essential for full accountability for the victims of Jeffrey Epstein – as well as for future would-be victims who will suffer from comparable criminal networks – if our banks are not made responsible for the essential role each performs, either in providing the necessary infrastructure for the criminal enterprise or identifying the monetary aspect of these offenses and stopping it.

Edwards continued: “Our prospects are significantly higher of effecting meaningful change than lawmakers, because we understand the details and history of the case and are not motivated by partisan interests but rather by a sincere intention to make a real difference and to safeguard the survivors, who have already suffered tremendously.

“We approach these matters without any partisan motives and thus will not be swayed by obstructions, protecting wealthy politically connected individuals, or the other embarrassing partisan gamesmanship 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 many years without detection, we are taking another important step forward toward legal resolution for victims.”

Institutional Reactions

When requested for a statement on the lawsuit, BNY said: “The claims in the lawsuit are meritless, and we will vigorously defend against it.”

Bank of America’s statement similarly remarked: “We will vigorously defend ourselves in this matter.”