🔗 Share this article

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

Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s ex-girlfriend, was convicted of sex trafficking four years ago for her role in the deceased billionaire’s sexual abuse of teen girls – and given to two decades behind bars.

Meanwhile, banks that had worked with Epstein, although not accepting fault, agreed to pay hundreds of millions in settlements to victims. Former President Trump even made disclosing the Epstein investigative files part of his election promises, and doubled down on his commitment to do so early this year.

Ultimately, the administration’s Department of Justice did not make public these records, and his administration has become embroiled in reports about social ties between him and Epstein. Assurances from lawmakers to disclose documents have lagged, due to partisan maneuvering and delays from federal authorities.

But two new lawsuits could shed light on Epstein’s activities amid the deadlock – irrespective of their outcome.

Legal Actions Target Major Banks

These lawsuits, filed by an unnamed accuser against a major U.S. bank and the Bank of New York Mellon (BNY), claim that these financial powerhouses illicitly enabled Epstein’s trafficking ring. The suits are led by attorney Sigrid McCawley, of a prominent law firm, 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 influence, but through financial backing and monetary assistance from both private parties and institutions, including BNY,” one lawsuit states. “Shockingly, the institution had a abundance of knowledge regarding Epstein’s trafficking network but opted for financial gain over protecting the victims.”

The complaint against Bank of America echoes these allegations, 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 non-criminal business activities”. The legal action also said Bank of America failed to file suspicious activity reports.

Attorneys Weigh In on Case Challenges

Experienced lawyers who commented on the situation said proving such a case would be challenging. But they also noted potential results which could offer comfort to accusers or disclosure of long-sought information.

Attorney Neama Rahmani, a ex-government lawyer who established 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 obviously I am on the side of the victims, 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 legal standpoint.

“It all comes down to evidence,” Rahmani said. A lawyer would need to prove causation, which would mean “if not for the bank’s actions, the harm wouldn’t have happened”. In this instance, that would translate to “but for the bank’s conduct, the survivor maybe wouldn’t have been trafficked”, Rahmani explained.

An attorney would also have to go beyond 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 victim’s suffering.

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

“It represents a reputational disaster,” he said. If the banks try to get these suits dismissed and are unsuccessful, Rahmani anticipates a swift settlement. “No party desires to pursue any of the legal matters tied to Epstein.”

Eric Faddis, a litigator and principal of the Colorado law firm his firm and ex-government lawyer, said corporations can be liable. In this scenario, “if the institutions bear fault is going to hinge, in part, on what the banks knew, if they were informed of claimed misconduct or illegal acts”, and somehow 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 banks would likely not be aware of the details of allegations,” the lawyer 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”.

“It is illegal for a bank 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 tough lawsuit against the institutions.”

Potential Benefits for Victims

That said, key elements of the litigation could assist 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 evidence-gathering phase, and that legal procedure often requires release of materials that was not previously public.”

Attorney Brad Edwards said in a statement that the suits could have a preventive impact and accomplish what legislators have been unable to do.

“The lawsuits are necessary for complete justice for the survivors of the financier – as well as for future would-be victims who will be harmed from comparable criminal networks – if our financial institutions are not made responsible for the essential role each plays, either in providing the necessary infrastructure for the illegal operation or identifying the financial component of these crimes and stopping it.

He added: “We have a far better chance of effecting meaningful change than Congress, because we understand the facts and history of the matter and are not motivated by politics but rather by a genuine desire to create substantial impact and to safeguard the victims, who have already endured immense pain.

“Our handling of these issues without any political agenda 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 watch unfold recently.”

Attorney Sigrid McCawley said in a statement: “As Congress works toward unraveling how Jeffrey Epstein was able to conduct his illegal trafficking operation for many years without detection, we are taking another important step forward toward legal resolution for survivors.”

Bank Responses

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

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