🔗 Share this article

Over many years, survivors of the late financier Jeffrey Epstein have demanded accountability. For a while, it seemed like they would achieve it.

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

Meanwhile, financial firms that had worked with Epstein, although not accepting fault, paid substantial sums in agreements to victims. Former President Trump even made disclosing the Epstein investigative files part of his campaign platform, and doubled down on his commitment to do so early this year.

Ultimately, the administration’s Department of Justice did not make public these files, and his government has become embroiled in allegations about personal connections between him and Epstein. Congressional promises to release files have stalled, due to political jockeying and delays from federal authorities.

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

Legal Actions Target Leading Financial Institutions

The legal complaints, submitted by an unnamed accuser against Bank of America and the BNY Mellon, allege that these financial powerhouses unlawfully facilitated 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 survivors of Epstein’s abuse.

“The financier carried out these offenses by means of not only his own extraordinary wealth and power, but through access to funding and monetary assistance from both private parties and institutions, including the bank,” one lawsuit claims. “Shockingly, BNY had a plethora of information regarding Epstein’s sex trafficking operation but opted for financial gain over safeguarding those harmed.”

The complaint against Bank of America echoes these allegations, asserting the institution “deliberately supplied the financial support and the appearance of respectability for Epstein and his accomplices to fuel their international sex trafficking organization under the guise of non-criminal business activities”. The suit also said the bank failed to file mandatory financial alerts.

Legal Experts Weigh In on Legal Hurdles

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

Neama Rahmani, a ex-government lawyer 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 answers and criminal justice and financial recovery,” the attorney said. Certain allegations might be too tangential from a legal standpoint.

“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 harm wouldn’t have occurred”. In this case, that would translate to “but for the bank’s conduct, the survivor maybe wouldn’t have been trafficked”, Rahmani clarified.

An attorney 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 legal test. So whatever misconduct there was, if there was any misconduct … the defendant’s misconduct has to have been a substantial factor in leading to the victim’s suffering.

“Through maintaining financial ties to Epstein, is that a decisive element? I don’t know.”

Regardless of legal responsibility, such lawsuits could serve as a warning that relationships with those accused of wrongdoing can have damaging implications for them.

“It’s a PR nightmare,” Rahmani noted. If the financial institutions try to get these suits thrown out and fail, Rahmani expects a swift settlement. “No one wants to go litigate any of the Epstein-related cases.”

Attorney Eric Faddis, a litigator and founder of the Colorado law firm 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 their level of awareness, if they were informed 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 financial entities into some kind of sex-trafficking scheme. The institutions would probably not be aware of the particulars of claims,” the lawyer said. While the financier’s prior legal case was known, “there’s no law against for a financial institution to have a customer who’s an unsavory person”.

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

Possible Advantages for Victims

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

“The lawsuits have the potential to reveal more information about the ongoing Epstein saga,” Faddis said. “Despite the fact that there have been obstacles erected at every turn for folks pursuing this information, when there’s a legal action, there’s a discovery process, and that discovery process often mandates disclosure of information that was not previously public.”

Edwards said in a comment that the suits could have a deterrent effect and achieve what lawmakers have failed to do.

“Legal actions are essential for full accountability for the victims of Jeffrey Epstein – as well as for potential targets who will be harmed from similar trafficking organizations – if our financial institutions are not made responsible for the essential role each performs, either in providing the necessary infrastructure for the illegal operation or recognizing the financial component of these offenses and stopping it.

Edwards continued: “Our prospects are significantly higher of making a real difference than Congress, 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 protect the victims, who have already suffered tremendously.

“Our handling of these issues without any partisan motives and thus will not be swayed by shutdowns, protecting wealthy politically connected individuals, or the other embarrassing partisan gamesmanship you and the rest of the world have had to watch unfold recently.”

McCawley said in a declaration: “While legislators attempt to uncover how Jeffrey Epstein was able to orchestrate his illegal trafficking operation for many years without being caught, we are taking another important step forward toward justice for victims.”

Institutional Reactions

Asked for comment 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 intend to firmly protect our interests in this case.”