🔗 Share this article

Over many years, victims of Jeffrey Epstein have demanded accountability. At one point, it seemed like they would get it.

Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s ex-girlfriend, 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 two decades behind bars.

Meanwhile, financial firms that had worked with Epstein, while not accepting fault, paid hundreds of millions in settlements to survivors. Donald Trump even made disclosing the documents related to the Epstein probe part of his campaign platform, and doubled down on his commitment to do so in recent months.

In the end, the administration’s Department of Justice did not make public these files, and his government has become involved in allegations about social ties between him and Epstein. Assurances from lawmakers to release files have lagged, due to partisan maneuvering and delays from federal authorities.

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

Lawsuits Target Leading Financial Institutions

The legal complaints, submitted by an unnamed accuser against a major U.S. bank and the BNY Mellon, allege that these financial powerhouses illicitly enabled Epstein’s sex trafficking. The suits are led by Sigrid S McCawley, of a prominent law firm, and Brad Edwards of Edwards Henderson, who have consistently advocated for Epstein victims.

“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 organizations, including the bank,” one lawsuit claims. “Egregiously, BNY had a abundance of knowledge regarding Epstein’s sex trafficking operation but chose profit over protecting the victims.”

The complaint against Bank of America mirrors these claims, asserting the institution “knowingly provided the financial support and the veneer of institutional legitimacy for Epstein and his accomplices to fuel their international sex trafficking organization under the pretext of legal commercial dealings”. The legal action also said Bank of America failed to file mandatory financial alerts.

Legal Experts Offer Perspectives on Case Challenges

Experienced lawyers who commented on the situation said establishing liability would be difficult. But they also noted potential results which could offer comfort to plaintiffs or release 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.

“I don’t think the lawsuit has much of a chance of success – and clearly I am on the side of the survivors, and I want them to get answers and criminal justice and compensation,” Rahmani 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 injury wouldn’t have happened”. In this instance, that would translate to “but for the bank’s conduct, the victim maybe wouldn’t have been trafficked”, Rahmani clarified.

A lawyer 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 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 substantial factor? I don’t know.”

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

“It represents a reputational disaster,” he said. If the financial institutions try to get these suits thrown out and are unsuccessful, the attorney anticipates a swift settlement. “No one wants to go litigate any of the legal matters tied to Epstein.”

Eric Faddis, a litigator and principal of the Colorado law firm Varner Faddis and ex-government lawyer, said companies can be liable. In this situation, “if the institutions bear fault is going to depend, in part, on their level of awareness, if they were informed of claimed misconduct or illegal acts”, and somehow offered support to Epstein.

“However, even in that case, I think it’s going to be hard to sort of loop the financial entities into some kind of sex-trafficking scheme. The banks would probably not be aware of the details of claims,” the lawyer said. While Epstein’s Florida conviction was public, “it’s not illegal for a financial institution to have a client who’s an disreputable individual”.

“However, it is unlawful for a bank to somehow be involved in the criminal activity of a client, but these aspects are very different, and so I think that it’s going to be a difficult case against the institutions.”

Possible Advantages for Victims

Nevertheless, 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. “Even though there have been obstacles erected at every turn for individuals pursuing this information, when there’s a lawsuit, there’s a discovery process, and that discovery process often requires disclosure of information that was not formerly available.”

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

“The lawsuits are necessary for complete justice for the survivors of Jeffrey Epstein – as well as for potential targets who will be harmed from similar trafficking organizations – if our banks 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 putting an end to it.

Edwards continued: “We have a far better chance of effecting meaningful change than Congress, because we understand the details and history of the case and are not driven by politics but rather by a sincere intention to create substantial impact and to protect the survivors, who have already suffered tremendously.

“We approach these matters without any political agenda and thus cannot be deterred 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: “As Congress works toward unraveling how Jeffrey Epstein was able to conduct his illegal trafficking operation for many years without being caught, we are taking another important step forward toward justice for victims.”

Bank Responses

When requested for a statement on the legal complaint, the Bank of New York Mellon said: “The allegations in the case are baseless, and we will vigorously defend against it.”

Bank of America’s statement similarly remarked: “We intend to firmly protect our interests in this case.”