For years, survivors of the late financier Jeffrey Epstein have sought justice. At one point, it appeared like they would get it.
Epstein’s former associate Ghislaine Maxwell, the financier’s one-time partner, was convicted of sex trafficking in a 2021 trial for her role in the deceased billionaire’s exploitation of teen girls – and sentenced to two decades behind bars.
Meanwhile, financial firms that had worked with Epstein, while not accepting fault, agreed to pay substantial sums in settlements to victims. Donald Trump even made releasing the Epstein investigative files part of his election promises, and doubled down on his commitment to do so early this year.
In the end, Trump’s justice department did not make public these records, and his government has become embroiled in reports about social ties between him and Epstein. Assurances from lawmakers to disclose documents have lagged, due to partisan maneuvering and delays from federal authorities.
However recent legal actions could shed light on Epstein’s activities amid the stalemate – regardless of their outcome.
The legal complaints, filed by an anonymous plaintiff against a major U.S. bank and the BNY Mellon, allege that these banking giants illicitly enabled Epstein’s trafficking ring. The suits are led by Sigrid S McCawley, of a prominent law firm, and lawyer Brad Edwards of Edwards Henderson, who have consistently advocated for survivors of Epstein’s abuse.
“The financier carried out these offenses by means of not only his own extraordinary wealth and power, but through access to funding and financial support from both private parties and organizations, including the bank,” the legal filing claims. “Egregiously, the institution had a abundance of knowledge regarding Epstein’s sex trafficking operation but opted for financial gain over safeguarding those harmed.”
The complaint against Bank of America echoes these allegations, asserting the institution “knowingly provided the financial support and the appearance of respectability for Epstein and his accomplices to support their global trafficking enterprise under the guise of legal commercial dealings”. The legal action also said Bank of America neglected to file suspicious activity reports.
Longtime attorneys who commented on the situation said proving such a case would be challenging. But they also identified potential results which could offer comfort to accusers or release of previously hidden details.
Attorney Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor who founded West Coast Trial lawyers, said proof 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 obviously I am on the side of the victims, 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.
“It all comes down to evidence,” he said. A lawyer would need to prove cause and effect, which would mean “but for the defendant’s conduct, the injury wouldn’t have happened”. In this instance, that would boil down to “but for the bank’s conduct, the victim maybe wouldn’t have been trafficked”, Rahmani clarified.
An attorney would also have to go further than a basic causation test. “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 wrongdoing … the defendant’s misconduct has to have been a substantial factor in leading to the plaintiff harm.
“By engaging in a business relationship with Epstein, is that a substantial factor? It’s uncertain.”
Liability aside, such lawsuits could serve as a warning that associations with those accused of wrongdoing can have negative consequences for them.
“It’s a PR nightmare,” he said. If the financial institutions try to get these cases thrown out and fail, the attorney expects a quick resolution. “No party desires to pursue any of the Epstein-related cases.”
Eric Faddis, a litigator and founder of the Colorado law firm Varner Faddis and ex-government lawyer, said corporations can be responsible. In this scenario, “if the institutions bear fault is going to hinge, in part, on their level of awareness, if they were informed of claimed misconduct or criminal wrongdoing”, and somehow offered support to Epstein.
“But even then, I think it’s going to be hard to effectively connect the banks into some kind of sex-trafficking scheme. The banks would likely not be aware of the details of allegations,” Faddis said. While Epstein’s Florida conviction was known, “there’s no law against for a bank 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 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 banks.”
Nevertheless, key elements of the legal proceedings could assist Epstein survivors.
“The lawsuits have the potential to reveal more information about the ongoing Epstein saga,” the attorney said. “Even though there have been sort of walls put up at every turn for individuals pursuing 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 suits could have a deterrent effect and accomplish what lawmakers have failed to do.
“The lawsuits are necessary for complete justice for the victims of Jeffrey Epstein – as well as for future would-be victims who will suffer from similar trafficking organizations – if our banks are not made responsible for the crucial part 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.
He added: “Our prospects are significantly higher of effecting meaningful change than Congress, because we understand the details and background of the matter and are not motivated by politics but rather by a sincere intention to make a real difference and to safeguard the victims, who have already endured immense pain.
“We approach these matters without any partisan motives 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 observe recently.”
Attorney Sigrid McCawley said in a statement: “While legislators attempt to uncover how the financier was able to conduct his criminal sex-trafficking enterprise for many years without detection, we are taking a further significant action forward toward justice for survivors.”
Asked for comment on the legal complaint, the Bank of New York Mellon said: “The claims in the lawsuit are meritless, and we will strongly contest against it.”
The bank’s response likewise stated: “We intend to firmly protect our interests in this case.”
A seasoned software engineer with a passion for open-source projects and tech education.
