For years, survivors of Jeffrey Epstein have demanded accountability. For a while, it seemed like they would get it.
Ghislaine Maxwell, the financier’s one-time partner, was found guilty of human trafficking four years ago for her role in the deceased billionaire’s sexual abuse of teen girls – and sentenced to 20 years imprisonment.
Meanwhile, financial firms that had done business with Epstein, although not accepting fault, paid substantial sums in settlements to survivors. Donald Trump even made disclosing the documents related to the Epstein probe part of his campaign platform, and reiterated 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 government has become embroiled in reports about social ties between him and Epstein. Congressional promises to disclose documents have stalled, due to partisan maneuvering and delays from federal authorities.
But two new lawsuits could shed light on Epstein’s activities amid the deadlock – regardless of their outcome.
Lawsuits Target Leading Financial Institutions
These lawsuits, submitted by an anonymous plaintiff against Bank of America and the BNY Mellon, allege that these financial powerhouses illicitly enabled Epstein’s sex trafficking. The cases are helmed by Sigrid S McCawley, of Boies Schiller Flexner, and lawyer Brad Edwards of Edwards Henderson, who have long represented survivors of Epstein’s abuse.
“Epstein committed these crimes by means of not only his own vast fortune and influence, but through access to funding and financial support from both individuals and institutions, including BNY,” the legal filing claims. “Shockingly, BNY 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 echoes these allegations, declaring 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 Bank of America neglected to file mandatory financial alerts.
Attorneys Weigh In on Legal Hurdles
Longtime attorneys who spoke to the matter said establishing liability would be challenging. But they also identified possible outcomes which could provide solace to plaintiffs or release of long-sought information.
Attorney Neama Rahmani, a ex-government lawyer who founded West Coast Trial lawyers, said evidence has to show that an bank’s conduct led to 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. Certain allegations might be not directly related from a legal standpoint.
“It all comes down to evidence,” he said. A lawyer would need to prove cause and effect, which would mean “if not for the bank’s actions, the injury wouldn’t have occurred”. In this instance, that would boil down to “absent the institution’s involvement, the survivor maybe wouldn’t have been exploited”, the lawyer explained.
An attorney 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 legal test. So any improper behavior there was, if there was any wrongdoing … the bank’s actions has to have been a key contributor in causing the plaintiff harm.
“Through maintaining financial ties to Epstein, is that a decisive element? 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,” he said. If the banks try to get these suits thrown out and are unsuccessful, Rahmani expects a quick resolution. “No one wants to go litigate any of the legal matters tied to Epstein.”
Eric Faddis, a trial attorney and founder of the legal practice his firm and ex-government lawyer, said companies can be liable. In this situation, “whether the banks have liability is going to depend, in part, on what the banks knew, if they were informed of claimed misconduct or criminal wrongdoing”, and in some way provided assistance to Epstein.
“But even then, I think it’s going to be difficult to sort of loop the banks into some kind of trafficking operation. The institutions would probably not be privy to the particulars of claims,” Faddis said. While the financier’s prior legal case was known, “it’s not illegal for a financial institution to have a customer who’s an unsavory person”.
“However, it is unlawful for a bank to in any way be complicit in the illegal actions of a customer, but those two issues are very different, and so I think that it’s going to be a tough lawsuit against the banks.”
Possible Advantages for Victims
Nevertheless, important aspects of the litigation could help those affected by Epstein.
“These cases may uncover additional details about the continuing Epstein story,” the attorney said. “Even though there have been sort of walls put up at every turn for individuals pursuing this data, when there’s a lawsuit, there’s a discovery process, and that discovery process often mandates release of materials that was not previously public.”
Attorney Brad Edwards said in a statement that the lawsuits could have a deterrent effect and achieve what legislators have been unable to do.
“The lawsuits are necessary for complete justice for the victims of Jeffrey Epstein – as well as for potential targets who will suffer from similar trafficking organizations – if our banks are not held accountable for the essential role each performs, either in providing the required framework for the criminal enterprise or recognizing the monetary aspect of these crimes and putting an end to it.
He added: “We have a far better chance of making a real difference than Congress, because we understand the facts and background of the matter and are not driven by politics but rather by a genuine desire to create substantial impact and to protect the victims, who have already suffered tremendously.
“We approach these matters without any partisan motives and thus cannot be deterred by obstructions, shielding influential figures, or the other shameful political maneuvering you and the rest of the world have had to watch unfold recently.”
McCawley said in a statement: “As Congress works toward unraveling how the financier was able to conduct his illegal trafficking operation for many years without detection, we are taking a further significant action forward toward justice for survivors.”
Institutional Reactions
When requested for a statement on the legal complaint, BNY said: “The allegations in the case are baseless, and we will strongly contest against it.”
Bank of America’s statement likewise stated: “We will vigorously defend ourselves in this matter.”
