Legal Actions Targeting Banks with Epstein Ties May Reveal Fresh Insights on Financier’s Wrongdoings

Over many years, survivors of Jeffrey Epstein have sought accountability. At one point, it appeared like they would get it.

Epstein’s former associate Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s ex-girlfriend, was convicted of sex trafficking in a 2021 trial for her involvement in the deceased billionaire’s exploitation of underage females – and sentenced to 20 years imprisonment.

Meanwhile, financial firms that had worked with Epstein, while not admitting wrongdoing, paid substantial sums in settlements to victims. Former President Trump even made disclosing the documents related to the Epstein probe part of his campaign platform, and reiterated on his commitment to do so early this year.

Ultimately, Trump’s justice department did not release these files, and his government has become involved in allegations about personal connections between him and Epstein. Assurances from lawmakers to release files have lagged, due to political jockeying and delays from federal authorities.

But two new lawsuits could provide clarity on Epstein’s activities amid the deadlock – regardless of their result.

Lawsuits Aim at Leading Financial Institutions

The legal complaints, submitted by an unnamed accuser against a major U.S. bank and the BNY Mellon, allege that these financial powerhouses unlawfully facilitated Epstein’s trafficking ring. The cases are led by attorney Sigrid McCawley, of Boies Schiller Flexner, 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 vast fortune and influence, but through access to funding and financial support from both individuals and organizations, including BNY,” one lawsuit states. “Shockingly, BNY had a plethora of information regarding Epstein’s trafficking network but chose profit over safeguarding those harmed.”

The Bank of America suit mirrors these claims, asserting the institution “deliberately supplied the monetary resources and the appearance of respectability for Epstein and his co-conspirators to support their international sex trafficking organization under the pretext of legal commercial dealings”. The legal action also said the bank failed to file suspicious activity reports.

Legal Experts Weigh In on Case Challenges

Longtime attorneys who spoke to the situation said establishing liability would be difficult. But they also identified possible outcomes which could offer comfort to plaintiffs or release of previously hidden details.

Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor who established a legal firm, 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 clearly I am on the side of the survivors, and I want them to get explanations and legal redress and financial recovery,” Rahmani said. Some claims might be not directly related from a juridical perspective.

“It all comes down to evidence,” he said. A attorney would need to prove causation, 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 trafficked”, the lawyer explained.

A lawyer would also have to go further than a “but for” measure. “Is not just ‘but for’ causation. 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 causing 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, suits like this could serve as a warning that associations with those involved in alleged crimes can have damaging implications for them.

“It represents a reputational disaster,” Rahmani noted. If the financial institutions try to get these suits dismissed and are unsuccessful, the attorney expects a swift settlement. “No one wants to go litigate any of the Epstein-related cases.”

Eric Faddis, a trial attorney and principal of the legal practice his firm and former prosecutor, said companies can be responsible. In this situation, “if the institutions bear fault is going to depend, in part, on what the banks knew, whether they had any knowledge of alleged abuse or illegal acts”, and in some way offered support to Epstein.

“However, even in that case, I think it’s going to be difficult to effectively connect the financial entities into some kind of sex-trafficking scheme. The institutions would likely not be aware of the details of allegations,” Faddis said. While Epstein’s Florida conviction was public, “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 complicit in the criminal activity of a customer, but those two issues are distinct, and so I think that it’s going to be a difficult case against the banks.”

Possible Advantages for Survivors

That said, important aspects of the litigation could assist those affected by Epstein.

“These cases may uncover additional details about the continuing Epstein story,” Faddis said. “Despite the fact that there have been sort of walls put up at every turn for folks seeking this information, when there’s a lawsuit, there’s a evidence-gathering phase, and that discovery process often requires release of materials that was not previously public.”

Attorney Brad Edwards said in a comment that the suits could have a preventive impact and achieve what legislators have been unable to do.

“The lawsuits are necessary for complete justice for the survivors of Jeffrey Epstein – as well as for potential targets who will suffer from similar trafficking organizations – if our banks are not held accountable for the essential role each plays, either in supplying the required framework for the criminal enterprise or identifying the financial component of these crimes and putting an end to it.

Edwards continued: “We have a far better chance of effecting meaningful change than lawmakers, because we understand the details and background of the case and are not motivated by partisan interests but rather by a genuine desire to create substantial impact and to safeguard the victims, 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 watch unfold recently.”

McCawley said in a declaration: “While legislators attempt to uncover how Jeffrey Epstein was able to orchestrate his criminal sex-trafficking enterprise for decades without detection, we are taking another important step forward toward justice for survivors.”

Institutional Reactions

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 vigorously defend against it.”

Bank of America’s statement similarly remarked: “We will vigorously defend ourselves in this case.”