🔗 Share this article

For years, survivors 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 sex trafficking in a 2021 trial for her involvement in the late financier’s exploitation of teen girls – and sentenced to 20 years imprisonment.

At the same time, financial firms that had worked with Epstein, although not accepting fault, agreed to pay hundreds of millions in settlements to survivors. Former President 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 records, and his administration has become involved in reports about social ties between him and Epstein. Congressional promises to release files have stalled, due to partisan maneuvering and delays from federal authorities.

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

Legal Actions Target Major Banks

These lawsuits, submitted by an unnamed accuser against Bank of America and the BNY Mellon, claim that these banking giants illicitly enabled Epstein’s trafficking ring. The suits are led by attorney Sigrid 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 influence, but through access to funding and financial support from both individuals and organizations, including the bank,” one lawsuit states. “Shockingly, the institution had a abundance of knowledge regarding Epstein’s sex trafficking operation but opted for financial gain over protecting the victims.”

The complaint against Bank of America 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 pretext of non-criminal business activities”. The suit also said the bank neglected to file suspicious activity reports.

Legal Experts Weigh In on Legal Hurdles

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

Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor who established a legal firm, said evidence has to show that an institution’s actions 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 explanations and criminal justice and financial recovery,” Rahmani said. Certain allegations might be too tangential from a juridical perspective.

“The case hinges on proof,” Rahmani said. A attorney would need to prove cause and effect, which would mean “but for the defendant’s conduct, the injury wouldn’t have occurred”. In this instance, that would boil down to “but for the bank’s conduct, the survivor maybe wouldn’t have been exploited”, the lawyer 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 substantial factor: that is the standard. So whatever misconduct there was, if there was any wrongdoing … the bank’s actions has to have been a key contributor in leading to the plaintiff harm.

“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’s a PR nightmare,” Rahmani noted. If the banks try to get these cases dismissed and fail, the attorney anticipates a swift settlement. “No one wants to go litigate any of the Epstein-related cases.”

Attorney Eric Faddis, a trial attorney and founder of the legal practice Varner Faddis and ex-government lawyer, said corporations can be responsible. In this situation, “whether the banks have liability is going to hinge, in part, on their level of awareness, if they were informed of alleged abuse or criminal wrongdoing”, and in some way provided assistance to Epstein.

“However, even in that case, I think it’s going to be difficult to sort of loop the financial entities into some kind of trafficking operation. The banks would likely not be aware of the particulars of claims,” the lawyer said. While Epstein’s Florida conviction was public, “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 somehow be involved in the criminal activity of a client, but those two issues are very different, and so I think that it’s going to be a difficult case against the banks.”

Potential Benefits for Survivors

Nevertheless, key elements of the litigation could help Epstein survivors.

“These cases may uncover additional details about the ongoing Epstein saga,” the attorney said. “Even though there have been obstacles erected at every turn for individuals pursuing this information, when there’s a legal action, there’s a discovery process, and that legal procedure often requires disclosure of materials that was not previously public.”

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

“The lawsuits are necessary for complete justice for the victims of Jeffrey Epstein – as well as for potential targets who will be harmed from similar trafficking organizations – if our banks are not held accountable for the crucial part each performs, either in supplying the required framework for the illegal operation or recognizing the financial component of these crimes and stopping it.

Edwards continued: “Our prospects are significantly higher of effecting meaningful change than Congress, because we know the details and history of the case and are not motivated by partisan interests but rather by a genuine desire to make a real difference and to safeguard the victims, 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.”

McCawley said in a statement: “While legislators attempt to uncover how the financier was able to orchestrate his illegal trafficking operation for decades without detection, we are taking a further significant action forward toward legal resolution for victims.”

Institutional Reactions

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

The bank’s response likewise stated: “We intend to firmly protect our interests in this matter.”