🔗 Share this article

Over many years, survivors of the late financier Jeffrey Epstein have demanded accountability. At one point, it seemed like they would achieve it.

Epstein’s former associate Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s ex-girlfriend, was found guilty of human trafficking four years ago for her involvement in the deceased billionaire’s exploitation of teen girls – and sentenced to 20 years imprisonment.

At the same time, financial firms that had done business with Epstein, although not accepting fault, agreed to pay hundreds of millions in settlements to survivors. Former President Trump even made disclosing the Epstein investigative files part of his election promises, and doubled down on his promise to do so early this year.

In the end, Trump’s justice department did not make public these files, and his government has become embroiled in reports about personal connections between him and Epstein. Assurances from lawmakers to disclose documents have stalled, due to partisan maneuvering and delays from federal authorities.

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

Legal Actions Aim at Leading Financial Institutions

These lawsuits, filed by an unnamed accuser 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 a prominent law firm, and Brad Edwards of his legal practice, who have consistently advocated for survivors of Epstein’s abuse.

“Epstein committed these crimes by means of not only his own vast fortune and power, but through financial backing and monetary assistance from both individuals and institutions, including BNY,” the legal filing states. “Shockingly, BNY had a plethora of information regarding Epstein’s trafficking network but chose profit over safeguarding those harmed.”

The Bank of America suit echoes these allegations, asserting the institution “deliberately supplied the financial support and the veneer of institutional legitimacy for Epstein and his co-conspirators to support their international sex trafficking organization under the pretext of legal commercial dealings”. The suit also said Bank of America failed to file suspicious activity reports.

Legal Experts Offer Perspectives on Legal Hurdles

Longtime attorneys who spoke to the situation said establishing liability would be difficult. But they also noted potential results which could provide solace to accusers or disclosure of previously hidden details.

Attorney Neama Rahmani, a ex-government lawyer who founded 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 clearly I am on the side of the survivors, 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 juridical perspective.

“The case hinges on proof,” Rahmani said. A attorney would need to prove cause and effect, which would mean “if not for the bank’s actions, the injury wouldn’t have happened”. In this instance, that would boil down to “but for the bank’s conduct, the survivor maybe wouldn’t have been exploited”, Rahmani clarified.

An attorney 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 wrongdoing … the defendant’s misconduct has to have been a key contributor in leading to the plaintiff harm.

“By engaging in a business relationship with Epstein, is that a decisive element? It’s uncertain.”

Liability aside, suits like this could serve as a warning that associations with those involved in alleged crimes can have damaging implications for them.

“It’s a PR nightmare,” he said. If the banks try to get these suits dismissed and fail, the attorney anticipates a quick resolution. “No party desires to pursue any of the legal matters tied to Epstein.”

Eric Faddis, a trial attorney and founder of the Colorado law firm his firm and ex-government lawyer, said companies 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 hard to sort of loop the banks into some kind of sex-trafficking scheme. The banks would likely not be aware of the details of claims,” Faddis said. While Epstein’s Florida conviction was known, “it’s not illegal for a financial institution to have a client who’s an unsavory person”.

“However, it is unlawful for a financial firm to in any way 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 banks.”

Possible Advantages for Survivors

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

“These cases may uncover additional details about the ongoing Epstein saga,” the attorney said. “Despite the fact that there have been obstacles erected at every turn for individuals seeking this data, when there’s a lawsuit, there’s a discovery process, and that discovery process often mandates release of materials that was not formerly available.”

Attorney Brad Edwards said in a comment that the lawsuits could have a preventive impact and achieve what legislators have been unable to do.

“The lawsuits are necessary for complete justice for the survivors of the financier – as well as for future would-be victims who will suffer 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 identifying the monetary aspect of these crimes and stopping it.

He added: “We have a far better chance of effecting meaningful change than Congress, because we know the details and history of the case and are not driven by politics but rather by a genuine desire to create substantial impact and to protect the survivors, who have already endured immense pain.

“We approach these matters without any political agenda 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.”

Attorney Sigrid McCawley said in a declaration: “While legislators attempt to uncover how the financier was able to orchestrate his illegal trafficking operation for many years without being caught, we are taking a further significant action forward toward justice for survivors.”

Institutional Reactions

Asked for comment on the legal complaint, BNY said: “The allegations in the case are baseless, and we will strongly contest against it.”

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