Lawsuits Against Financial Institutions having Jeffrey Epstein Ties Could Reveal Fresh Insights on Financier’s Crimes

Over many years, victims of the late financier Jeffrey Epstein have demanded accountability. For a while, it seemed like they would achieve it.

Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s ex-girlfriend, was found guilty of human trafficking four years ago for her role in the deceased billionaire’s sexual abuse of underage females – and given to 20 years imprisonment.

At the same time, banks that had worked with Epstein, while not accepting fault, agreed to pay substantial sums in settlements to survivors. Donald Trump even made disclosing the Epstein investigative files part of his election promises, and reiterated on his commitment to do so in recent months.

Ultimately, the administration’s Department of Justice did not make public these files, 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 delays from federal authorities.

But recent legal actions could shed light on Epstein’s operations amid the stalemate – regardless of their result.

Legal Actions Aim at Major Banks

These lawsuits, 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 sex trafficking. The suits are led by attorney Sigrid McCawley, of Boies Schiller Flexner, 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 vast fortune and influence, but through financial backing and monetary assistance from both individuals and institutions, including the bank,” the legal filing claims. “Shockingly, the institution had a abundance of knowledge regarding Epstein’s trafficking network but opted for financial gain over protecting the victims.”

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 accomplices to support their international sex trafficking organization under the guise of non-criminal business activities”. The legal action also said Bank of America neglected to file suspicious activity reports.

Attorneys Offer Perspectives on Legal Hurdles

Experienced lawyers who spoke to the situation said proving such a case would be difficult. But they also noted potential results which could offer comfort to plaintiffs or release of long-sought information.

Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor who established West Coast Trial lawyers, said proof has to show that an bank’s conduct led to harm.

“In my view, the case faces significant obstacles – and clearly I am on the side of the survivors, and I want them to get answers and criminal justice and financial recovery,” Rahmani said. Some claims might be too tangential from a legal standpoint.

“The case hinges on proof,” he said. A lawyer would need to prove causation, which would mean “if not for the bank’s actions, the injury wouldn’t have happened”. In this instance, that would translate to “but for the bank’s conduct, the survivor maybe wouldn’t have been exploited”, Rahmani explained.

An attorney would also have to go beyond a basic causation test. “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 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 serve as a warning that relationships with those accused of wrongdoing can have damaging implications for them.

“It represents a reputational disaster,” he said. If the banks try to get these suits dismissed and are unsuccessful, the attorney expects a quick resolution. “No party desires to pursue any of the legal matters tied to Epstein.”

Eric Faddis, a trial attorney and principal of the legal practice Varner Faddis and ex-government lawyer, said companies can be responsible. In this scenario, “if the institutions bear fault is going to depend, in part, on their level of awareness, whether they had any knowledge of alleged abuse or illegal acts”, and somehow offered support to Epstein.

“However, even in that case, I think it’s going to be hard to sort of loop the financial entities into some kind of sex-trafficking scheme. The institutions would likely not be privy to the particulars of claims,” the lawyer said. While Epstein’s Florida conviction was known, “it’s not illegal for a bank to have a customer who’s an disreputable individual”.

“However, it is unlawful for a financial firm to somehow be involved in the illegal actions of a customer, but those two issues are very different, and so I think that it’s going to be a tough lawsuit against the institutions.”

Potential Benefits for Survivors

That said, important aspects of the legal proceedings could help those affected by Epstein.

“The lawsuits have the potential to reveal more information about the continuing Epstein story,” the attorney said. “Even though there have been obstacles erected at every turn for individuals pursuing this information, when there’s a lawsuit, there’s a evidence-gathering phase, and that discovery process often requires disclosure of information that was not formerly available.”

Attorney Brad Edwards said in a statement that the suits could have a deterrent effect and achieve what legislators have been unable to do.

“Legal actions are essential for full accountability for the survivors of the financier – as well as for future would-be victims who will suffer from similar trafficking organizations – if our financial institutions are not made responsible for the essential role each plays, either in supplying the required framework for the illegal operation or identifying the monetary aspect of these crimes and stopping it.

Edwards continued: “We have a far better chance of effecting meaningful change than lawmakers, because we understand the facts and background of the matter and are not driven by partisan interests but rather by a genuine desire to make a real difference and to protect the survivors, who have already endured immense pain.

“Our handling of these issues 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 watch unfold recently.”

Attorney Sigrid McCawley said in a statement: “While legislators attempt to uncover how Jeffrey Epstein was able to conduct his illegal trafficking operation for many years without being caught, we are taking a further significant action forward toward justice for survivors.”

Bank Responses

Asked for comment on the legal complaint, the Bank of New York Mellon said: “The claims in the lawsuit are meritless, and we will vigorously defend against it.”

The bank’s response similarly remarked: “We will vigorously defend ourselves in this case.”