Over many years, survivors of the late financier Jeffrey Epstein have sought accountability. For a while, it appeared like they would achieve it.
Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s ex-girlfriend, was convicted of sex trafficking in a 2021 trial for her involvement in the deceased billionaire’s sexual abuse of teen girls – and given to two decades behind bars.
At the same time, banks that had worked with Epstein, while not admitting wrongdoing, paid hundreds of millions in agreements to victims. Donald Trump even made releasing the documents related to the Epstein probe part of his campaign platform, and doubled down on his promise to do so in recent months.
Ultimately, 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 lagged, due to political jockeying and justice department foot-dragging.
But recent legal actions could provide clarity on Epstein’s activities amid the deadlock – irrespective of their outcome.
These lawsuits, filed by an anonymous plaintiff against Bank of America and the BNY Mellon, allege that these banking giants illicitly enabled Epstein’s trafficking ring. The suits 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 individuals and institutions, including the bank,” one lawsuit states. “Egregiously, the institution had a abundance of knowledge regarding Epstein’s sex trafficking operation but chose profit over protecting the victims.”
The complaint against Bank of America mirrors these claims, asserting the institution “deliberately supplied the monetary resources and the veneer of institutional legitimacy for Epstein and his co-conspirators to support their global trafficking enterprise under the guise of legal commercial dealings”. The suit also said Bank of America failed to file suspicious activity reports.
Experienced lawyers who spoke to the situation said proving such a case would be difficult. But they also identified potential results which could offer comfort to plaintiffs 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 bank’s conduct resulted in harm.
“In my view, the case faces significant obstacles – and clearly I am on the side of the victims, and I want them to get explanations and legal redress and financial recovery,” Rahmani said. Certain allegations might be not directly related from a legal standpoint.
“The case hinges on proof,” he said. A attorney would need to prove cause and effect, which would mean “but for the defendant’s conduct, the injury wouldn’t have happened”. In this case, that would translate to “absent the institution’s involvement, the survivor maybe wouldn’t have been trafficked”, Rahmani explained.
A lawyer would also have to go beyond a “but for” measure. “It’s not solely about indirect cause. 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 causing the victim’s suffering.
“Through maintaining financial ties to 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 represents a reputational disaster,” Rahmani noted. If the financial institutions try to get these suits thrown out and fail, the attorney anticipates a quick resolution. “No one wants to go litigate any of the legal matters tied to Epstein.”
Attorney Eric Faddis, a trial attorney and founder of the legal practice his firm and ex-government lawyer, said companies can be responsible. In this situation, “if the institutions bear fault is going to hinge, in part, on what the banks knew, if they were informed of claimed misconduct or illegal acts”, and somehow offered support to Epstein.
“But even then, I think it’s going to be difficult to effectively connect the financial entities into some kind of trafficking operation. The institutions would likely not be privy to the details of allegations,” the lawyer said. While the financier’s prior legal case was public, “it’s not illegal for a bank to have a client who’s an unsavory person”.
“It is illegal for a bank to somehow be involved in the illegal actions 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 litigation could assist Epstein survivors.
“These cases may uncover additional details about the continuing Epstein story,” Faddis said. “Even though there have been sort of walls put up at every turn for folks pursuing this data, when there’s a lawsuit, there’s a discovery process, and that legal procedure often mandates release 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.
“Legal actions are essential for full accountability for the survivors of Jeffrey Epstein – as well as for potential targets who will be harmed from similar trafficking organizations – if our financial institutions are not held accountable for the essential role each plays, either in supplying the required framework for the criminal enterprise or identifying the monetary aspect of these offenses and putting an end to it.
He added: “Our prospects are significantly higher of making a real difference than lawmakers, because we know the facts and background of the matter and are not driven by partisan interests but rather by a genuine desire to create substantial impact and to safeguard the survivors, who have already suffered tremendously.
“We approach these matters without any partisan motives and thus cannot be deterred by shutdowns, protecting wealthy politically connected individuals, or the other shameful political maneuvering you and the rest of the world have had to observe recently.”
Attorney Sigrid McCawley said in a declaration: “As Congress works toward unraveling how the financier was able to orchestrate his criminal sex-trafficking enterprise for decades without detection, we are taking another important step forward toward justice for survivors.”
Asked for comment on the lawsuit, BNY said: “The allegations in the case are baseless, and we will vigorously defend against it.”
Bank of America’s statement similarly remarked: “We will vigorously defend ourselves in this matter.”
Elara is a financial strategist with over a decade of experience in wealth management and entrepreneurship.
