For years, victims of the late financier Jeffrey Epstein have demanded justice. At one point, it appeared like they would get it.
Ghislaine Maxwell, the financier’s one-time partner, was found guilty of sex trafficking in a 2021 trial for her role in the late financier’s sexual abuse of teen girls – and sentenced to two decades behind bars.
Meanwhile, financial firms that had done business with Epstein, although not accepting fault, agreed to pay substantial sums in agreements to survivors. Donald Trump even made releasing the Epstein investigative files part of his election promises, and reiterated on his commitment to do so early this year.
Ultimately, the administration’s Department of Justice did not make public these files, and his administration has become embroiled in allegations about social ties between him and Epstein. Congressional promises to release files have stalled, due to political jockeying and delays from federal authorities.
However recent legal actions could provide clarity on Epstein’s operations amid the stalemate – regardless of their outcome.
These lawsuits, submitted by an unnamed accuser against Bank of America and the BNY Mellon, allege that these banking giants unlawfully facilitated Epstein’s trafficking ring. The cases are led by attorney Sigrid McCawley, of a prominent law firm, and lawyer Brad Edwards of Edwards Henderson, who have long represented survivors of Epstein’s abuse.
“The financier carried out these offenses by means of not only his own extraordinary wealth and power, but through financial backing and monetary assistance from both individuals and institutions, including the bank,” one lawsuit claims. “Egregiously, the institution had a plethora of information regarding Epstein’s sex trafficking operation but opted for financial gain over safeguarding those harmed.”
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 support their global trafficking enterprise under the pretext of legal commercial dealings”. The suit also said Bank of America failed to file mandatory financial alerts.
Longtime attorneys who commented on the matter said establishing liability would be difficult. But they also noted possible outcomes which could provide solace to accusers or release of long-sought information.
Attorney Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor who established 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 answers and legal redress and financial recovery,” the attorney said. Some claims might be too tangential from a juridical perspective.
“It all comes down to evidence,” Rahmani said. A attorney 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 “but for the bank’s conduct, the victim maybe wouldn’t have been trafficked”, Rahmani explained.
A lawyer would also have to go further than a basic causation test. “Is not just ‘but for’ causation. It also has to be a significant element: that is the standard. So whatever misconduct there was, if there was any misconduct … the bank’s actions has to have been a key contributor in causing the plaintiff harm.
“By engaging in a business relationship with Epstein, is that a substantial factor? I don’t know.”
Liability aside, suits like this could put institutions on notice that relationships with those involved in alleged crimes can have damaging implications for them.
“It’s a PR nightmare,” he said. If the financial institutions try to get these cases thrown out and are unsuccessful, the attorney expects a quick resolution. “No party desires to pursue any of the legal matters tied to Epstein.”
Attorney Eric Faddis, a trial attorney and principal of the Colorado law firm his firm and former prosecutor, said companies can be liable. In this scenario, “if the institutions bear fault is going to depend, in part, on their level of awareness, if they were informed of alleged abuse or criminal wrongdoing”, and somehow 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 trafficking operation. The banks would likely not be aware of the particulars of claims,” the lawyer said. While the financier’s prior legal case was known, “there’s no law against for a financial institution to have a client who’s an unsavory person”.
“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.”
That said, important aspects of the legal proceedings could help those affected by Epstein.
“The lawsuits have the potential to reveal more information about the continuing Epstein story,” 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 legal procedure often mandates disclosure of information that was not previously public.”
Attorney Brad Edwards said in a statement that the lawsuits could have a deterrent effect and accomplish what legislators have failed to do.
“The lawsuits are necessary for complete justice for the victims of the financier – as well as for future would-be victims who will suffer from comparable criminal networks – if our financial institutions are not made responsible for the crucial part each plays, either in supplying the required framework for the criminal enterprise or recognizing the financial component of these offenses and stopping it.
He added: “Our prospects are significantly higher of effecting meaningful change than Congress, because we understand the facts 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 protect the survivors, who have already suffered tremendously.
“We approach these matters without any political agenda and thus cannot be deterred by obstructions, 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 the financier was able to orchestrate his criminal sex-trafficking enterprise for many years without being caught, we are taking another important step forward toward legal resolution for victims.”
Asked for comment on the legal complaint, the Bank of New York Mellon said: “The claims in the lawsuit are meritless, and we will vigorously defend against it.”
The bank’s response likewise stated: “We will vigorously defend ourselves in this matter.”
A seasoned gaming enthusiast with over a decade of experience in lottery analysis and casino reviews.
