🔗 Share this article

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

Epstein’s former associate Ghislaine Maxwell, the financier’s one-time partner, was found guilty of sex trafficking four years ago for her role in the deceased billionaire’s exploitation of teen girls – and given to two decades behind bars.

At the same time, banks that had worked with Epstein, although not admitting wrongdoing, agreed to pay hundreds of millions in settlements to victims. Former President Trump even made releasing the Epstein investigative files part of his election promises, and doubled down on his commitment to do so in recent months.

In the end, Trump’s justice department did not release these files, and his government has become involved in allegations about social ties between him and Epstein. Congressional promises to release files have lagged, due to political jockeying and delays from federal authorities.

But recent legal actions could provide clarity on Epstein’s operations amid the stalemate – regardless of their outcome.

Legal Actions Target Leading Financial Institutions

The legal complaints, filed by an unnamed accuser against Bank of America and the BNY Mellon, allege that these financial powerhouses illicitly enabled Epstein’s trafficking ring. The suits are helmed by Sigrid S McCawley, of a prominent law firm, and Brad Edwards of his legal practice, who have consistently advocated for Epstein victims.

“The financier carried out these offenses by means of not only his own vast fortune and power, but through access to funding and monetary assistance from both individuals and institutions, including BNY,” the legal filing claims. “Egregiously, the institution had a plethora of information regarding Epstein’s sex trafficking operation but chose profit over safeguarding those harmed.”

The complaint against Bank of America mirrors these claims, asserting the institution “knowingly provided the financial support and the appearance of respectability for Epstein and his co-conspirators to support their international sex trafficking organization under the guise of legal commercial dealings”. The legal action also said the bank failed to file mandatory financial alerts.

Legal Experts Weigh In on Case Challenges

Experienced lawyers who commented on the situation said proving such a case would be difficult. But they also noted possible outcomes which could offer comfort to plaintiffs or disclosure of previously hidden details.

Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor who founded a legal firm, said proof has to show that an bank’s conduct 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 explanations and legal redress and financial recovery,” Rahmani said. Certain allegations might be not directly related from a juridical perspective.

“It all comes down to evidence,” Rahmani said. A lawyer would need to prove cause and effect, which would mean “but for the defendant’s conduct, the harm wouldn’t have occurred”. In this instance, that would translate to “absent the institution’s involvement, the victim maybe wouldn’t have been exploited”, Rahmani explained.

A lawyer would also have to go beyond a “but for” measure. “Is not just ‘but for’ causation. It also has to be a significant element: that is the legal test. So any improper behavior there was, if there was any misconduct … the defendant’s misconduct has to have been a substantial factor in leading to the plaintiff harm.

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

Liability aside, such lawsuits could serve as a warning that associations with those accused of wrongdoing can have negative consequences for them.

“It represents a reputational disaster,” he said. If the banks try to get these cases thrown out and fail, Rahmani expects a swift settlement. “No one wants to go litigate any of the Epstein-related cases.”

Eric Faddis, a litigator and founder of the legal practice Varner Faddis and ex-government lawyer, said corporations can be liable. In this situation, “if the institutions bear fault is going to depend, in part, on what the banks knew, whether they had any knowledge of claimed misconduct or illegal acts”, and in some way offered support to Epstein.

“But even then, I think it’s going to be difficult to effectively connect the banks into some kind of sex-trafficking scheme. The banks would likely not be aware of the details of claims,” Faddis said. While the financier’s prior legal case was public, “it’s not illegal for a bank to have a client who’s an unsavory person”.

“It is illegal for a bank to somehow be complicit in the illegal actions of a client, 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 Survivors

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

“These cases may uncover additional details about the continuing Epstein story,” Faddis said. “Even though there have been obstacles erected at every turn for folks pursuing 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.”

Edwards said in a comment that the suits could have a preventive impact and accomplish what legislators have failed to do.

“The lawsuits are necessary for complete justice for the survivors of the financier – as well as for potential targets who will be harmed from similar trafficking organizations – if our financial institutions are not made responsible for the crucial part each plays, either in providing the required framework for the illegal operation or identifying the financial component of these crimes and stopping it.

Edwards continued: “Our prospects are significantly higher of effecting meaningful change than lawmakers, because we understand the details and background of the matter and are not motivated by partisan interests but rather by a sincere intention to create substantial impact and to safeguard the victims, who have already endured immense pain.

“Our handling of these issues without any partisan motives and thus will not be swayed by obstructions, shielding influential figures, or the other embarrassing partisan gamesmanship you and the rest of the world have had to observe recently.”

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 a further significant action forward toward legal resolution for victims.”

Institutional Reactions

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

The bank’s response similarly remarked: “We will vigorously defend ourselves in this matter.”