Over many years, victims of the late financier Jeffrey Epstein have sought accountability. For a while, it seemed like they would get it.
Epstein’s former associate Ghislaine Maxwell, the financier’s one-time partner, was found guilty of sex trafficking four years ago for her role in the late financier’s exploitation of underage females – and given to two decades behind bars.
Meanwhile, financial firms that had done business with Epstein, although not admitting wrongdoing, agreed to pay hundreds of millions in agreements 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, the administration’s Department of Justice did not make public these files, and his government has become embroiled in allegations about social ties between him and Epstein. Assurances from lawmakers to release files have lagged, due to political jockeying and delays from federal authorities.
But recent legal actions could provide clarity on Epstein’s operations amid the stalemate – regardless of their result.
The legal complaints, submitted by an anonymous plaintiff against Bank of America and the Bank of New York Mellon (BNY), claim that these financial powerhouses illicitly enabled Epstein’s trafficking ring. The suits are led by attorney Sigrid McCawley, of a prominent law firm, and lawyer Brad Edwards of his legal practice, who have long represented Epstein victims.
“Epstein committed these crimes by means of not only his own vast fortune and power, but through financial backing and financial support from both private parties and organizations, including BNY,” one lawsuit claims. “Egregiously, the institution had a plethora of information regarding Epstein’s trafficking network but chose profit over protecting the victims.”
The complaint against Bank of America mirrors these claims, declaring the institution “knowingly provided the financial support and the veneer of institutional legitimacy for Epstein and his accomplices to support their international sex trafficking organization under the guise of legal commercial dealings”. The legal action also said Bank of America failed to file mandatory financial alerts.
Longtime attorneys who spoke to the situation said proving such a case would be difficult. But they also noted possible outcomes which could provide solace 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 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 answers and legal redress and financial recovery,” Rahmani said. Certain allegations might be too tangential from a legal standpoint.
“The case hinges on proof,” Rahmani said. A attorney would need to prove causation, which would mean “if not for the bank’s actions, the harm wouldn’t have happened”. In this case, that would translate to “absent the institution’s involvement, the victim maybe wouldn’t have been trafficked”, the lawyer clarified.
An attorney would also have to go further than a “but for” measure. “It’s not solely about indirect cause. It also has to be a substantial factor: that is the legal test. So any improper behavior there was, if there was any misconduct … the bank’s actions has to have been a key contributor in causing the plaintiff harm.
“Through maintaining financial ties to Epstein, is that a substantial factor? I don’t know.”
Liability aside, 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,” he said. If the financial institutions try to get these suits dismissed and fail, the attorney anticipates a swift settlement. “No party desires to pursue any of the Epstein-related cases.”
Attorney Eric Faddis, a litigator and principal of the legal practice Varner Faddis and former prosecutor, said companies can be liable. In this scenario, “whether the banks have liability is going to hinge, in part, on their level of awareness, 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 privy to the particulars of allegations,” Faddis said. While the financier’s prior legal case was known, “it’s not illegal for a bank to have a client who’s an unsavory person”.
“It is illegal for a bank to in any way 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 tough lawsuit against the institutions.”
Nevertheless, important aspects of the legal proceedings could assist those affected by Epstein.
“The lawsuits have the potential to reveal more information about the ongoing Epstein saga,” the attorney said. “Even though there have been obstacles erected at every turn for folks pursuing this information, when there’s a lawsuit, there’s a evidence-gathering phase, and that discovery process often mandates disclosure of materials that was not formerly available.”
Edwards said in a comment that the suits could have a deterrent effect and accomplish what lawmakers have been unable to do.
“Legal actions are essential for full accountability for the victims of Jeffrey Epstein – as well as for potential targets who will be harmed 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 illegal operation or identifying the financial component of these crimes and stopping it.
Edwards continued: “We have a far better chance of effecting meaningful change than Congress, because we know the facts and background of the case and are not motivated by partisan interests but rather by a sincere intention to create substantial impact and to protect the survivors, who have already endured immense pain.
“Our handling of these issues without any political agenda and thus will not be swayed by shutdowns, shielding influential figures, or the other embarrassing partisan gamesmanship you and the rest of the world have had to watch unfold recently.”
McCawley said in a statement: “While legislators attempt to uncover how the financier 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, BNY said: “The claims in the lawsuit are meritless, and we will strongly contest against it.”
The bank’s response similarly remarked: “We will vigorously defend ourselves in this case.”
News