Over many years, victims of the late financier Jeffrey Epstein have sought accountability. At one point, it appeared like they would get it.
Ghislaine Maxwell, the financier’s one-time partner, was found guilty of human trafficking four years ago for her role in the late financier’s exploitation of teen girls – and sentenced to 20 years imprisonment.
At the same time, financial firms that had done business with Epstein, while not admitting wrongdoing, agreed to pay substantial sums in agreements to victims. Former President Trump even made disclosing the Epstein investigative files part of his election promises, and reiterated on his promise 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 allegations about social ties between him and Epstein. Assurances from lawmakers to disclose documents have stalled, due to partisan maneuvering and justice department foot-dragging.
However two new lawsuits could provide clarity on Epstein’s operations amid the stalemate – regardless of their result.
These lawsuits, filed by an anonymous plaintiff against a major U.S. bank and the Bank of New York Mellon (BNY), allege that these banking giants illicitly enabled Epstein’s trafficking ring. The cases are helmed by attorney Sigrid McCawley, of a prominent law firm, and Brad Edwards of his legal practice, who have long represented Epstein victims.
“The financier carried out these offenses by means of not only his own extraordinary wealth and power, but through access to funding and monetary assistance from both private parties and institutions, including the bank,” one lawsuit 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 mirrors these claims, asserting the institution “deliberately supplied the monetary resources and the appearance of respectability for Epstein and his accomplices to support their international sex trafficking organization under the pretext of non-criminal business activities”. The suit also said the bank failed to file suspicious activity reports.
Experienced lawyers who spoke to the situation said establishing liability would be difficult. But they also noted potential results which could offer comfort to accusers or disclosure of long-sought information.
Attorney Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor who established a legal firm, said evidence has to show that an bank’s conduct resulted in harm.
“I don’t think the lawsuit has much of a chance of success – and obviously I am on the side of the survivors, and I want them to get explanations and legal redress and financial recovery,” the attorney said. Some claims 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 “if not for the bank’s actions, the harm wouldn’t have happened”. In this case, that would boil down to “but for the bank’s conduct, the victim maybe wouldn’t have been exploited”, the lawyer 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 any improper behavior there was, if there was any wrongdoing … the bank’s actions has to have been a substantial factor in leading to the victim’s suffering.
“By engaging in a business relationship with Epstein, is that a decisive element? I don’t know.”
Regardless of legal responsibility, such lawsuits could put institutions on notice that associations with those accused of wrongdoing can have negative consequences for them.
“It represents a reputational disaster,” Rahmani noted. If the financial institutions try to get these suits thrown out and fail, Rahmani expects a swift settlement. “No party desires to pursue any of the legal matters tied to Epstein.”
Attorney Eric Faddis, a litigator and founder of the legal practice his firm and former prosecutor, said corporations can be responsible. 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 provided assistance to Epstein.
“But even then, I think it’s going to be hard to effectively connect the banks into some kind of trafficking operation. The institutions would probably not be privy to the details of claims,” Faddis said. While Epstein’s Florida conviction was known, “there’s no law against for a financial institution to have a client who’s an disreputable individual”.
“It is illegal for a financial firm to somehow be involved in the illegal actions of a customer, but these aspects are very different, and so I think that it’s going to be a difficult case against the institutions.”
Nevertheless, important aspects of the legal proceedings could assist Epstein survivors.
“The lawsuits have the potential to reveal more information about the ongoing Epstein saga,” Faddis said. “Despite the fact that there have been sort of walls put up at every turn for folks seeking this data, when there’s a legal action, there’s a discovery process, and that discovery process often mandates disclosure of materials that was not previously public.”
Edwards said in a comment that the suits could have a deterrent effect and accomplish what lawmakers 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 be harmed from similar trafficking organizations – if our financial institutions are not held accountable for the essential role each performs, either in supplying the required framework for the criminal enterprise or identifying the monetary aspect of these crimes and stopping it.
Edwards continued: “We have a far better chance of making a real difference than Congress, because we know the details and history of the matter and are not driven by politics 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 partisan motives 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 observe recently.”
Attorney Sigrid McCawley said in a statement: “As Congress works toward unraveling how Jeffrey Epstein was able to conduct his illegal trafficking operation for decades without being caught, we are taking another important step forward toward justice for victims.”
When requested for a statement on the lawsuit, 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 will vigorously defend ourselves in this case.”
A passionate textile artist and community organizer who loves inspiring others through creative sewing projects.
