🔗 Share this article

Over many years, survivors of Jeffrey Epstein have sought accountability. At one point, it appeared like they would get it.

Ghislaine Maxwell, the financier’s one-time partner, was found guilty of human trafficking in a 2021 trial for her involvement in the deceased billionaire’s sexual abuse of teen girls – and given to 20 years imprisonment.

Meanwhile, financial firms that had done business with Epstein, while not accepting fault, agreed to pay hundreds of millions in agreements to survivors. Donald Trump even made releasing the Epstein investigative files part of his campaign platform, and doubled down on his promise to do so early this year.

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

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

Legal Actions Target Leading Financial Institutions

These lawsuits, submitted by an anonymous plaintiff against a major U.S. bank and the Bank of New York Mellon (BNY), claim that these banking giants illicitly enabled Epstein’s sex trafficking. The suits are led by attorney Sigrid McCawley, of a prominent law firm, and lawyer Brad Edwards of his legal practice, 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 financial backing and financial support from both individuals and organizations, including the bank,” the legal filing states. “Egregiously, the institution had a abundance of knowledge regarding Epstein’s trafficking network but chose profit over protecting the victims.”

The Bank of America suit mirrors these claims, asserting the institution “knowingly provided the monetary resources and the appearance of respectability for Epstein and his accomplices to fuel their global trafficking enterprise under the guise of non-criminal business activities”. The legal action also said the bank neglected to file suspicious activity reports.

Legal Experts Weigh In on Legal Hurdles

Experienced lawyers who spoke to the matter said establishing liability would be difficult. But they also identified potential results which could provide solace to plaintiffs or disclosure of previously hidden details.

Neama Rahmani, a ex-government lawyer who established a legal firm, said evidence has to show that an bank’s conduct led to harm.

“In my view, the case faces significant obstacles – and clearly I am on the side of the survivors, and I want them to get explanations and legal redress and compensation,” Rahmani said. Certain allegations might be not directly related from a legal standpoint.

“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 happened”. In this case, that would boil down to “absent the institution’s involvement, the victim maybe wouldn’t have been exploited”, 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 substantial factor: that is the standard. So whatever misconduct there was, if there was any wrongdoing … 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 substantial factor? It’s uncertain.”

Liability aside, suits like this could serve as a warning that associations with those accused of wrongdoing can have damaging implications for them.

“It’s a PR nightmare,” Rahmani noted. If the banks try to get these suits dismissed and are unsuccessful, Rahmani anticipates a swift settlement. “No one wants to go litigate any of the legal matters tied to Epstein.”

Attorney Eric Faddis, a trial attorney and founder of the legal practice his firm and former prosecutor, said companies can be responsible. In this scenario, “if the institutions bear fault is going to depend, in part, on what the banks knew, if they were informed of alleged abuse or illegal acts”, and in some way offered support to Epstein.

“However, even in that case, I think it’s going to be difficult to effectively connect the banks into some kind of sex-trafficking scheme. The institutions would likely not be privy to the particulars of allegations,” Faddis said. While the financier’s prior legal case was public, “there’s no law against for a bank to have a client who’s an unsavory person”.

“However, it is unlawful for a bank to somehow be complicit in the illegal actions of a customer, but these aspects are distinct, and so I think that it’s going to be a difficult case against the institutions.”

Possible Advantages for Victims

That said, important aspects of the legal proceedings could help Epstein survivors.

“The lawsuits have the potential to reveal more information about the ongoing Epstein saga,” the attorney said. “Despite the fact that there have been obstacles erected at every turn for individuals seeking this information, when there’s a legal action, there’s a discovery process, and that discovery process often mandates release of information that was not formerly available.”

Edwards said in a comment that the lawsuits could have a preventive impact and achieve what legislators 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 comparable criminal networks – if our financial institutions are not made responsible for the essential role each plays, either in supplying the required framework for the criminal enterprise or identifying 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 know the facts and background of the case and are not motivated by partisan interests but rather by a genuine desire to make a real difference and to protect the victims, who have already suffered tremendously.

“Our handling of these issues without any political agenda and thus will not be swayed 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 declaration: “While legislators attempt to uncover how the financier was able to conduct his criminal sex-trafficking enterprise for many years without being caught, we are taking a further significant action forward toward justice for survivors.”

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.”

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