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

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

Ghislaine Maxwell, the financier’s one-time partner, was found guilty of sex trafficking in a 2021 trial for her role in the late financier’s exploitation of underage females – and given to 20 years imprisonment.

At the same time, banks that had worked with Epstein, although not admitting wrongdoing, agreed to pay hundreds of millions in agreements 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 release these records, and his administration has become embroiled in reports about personal connections between him and Epstein. Assurances from lawmakers to disclose documents have stalled, due to political jockeying and delays from federal authorities.

However recent legal actions could provide clarity on Epstein’s operations amid the deadlock – regardless of their result.

Lawsuits Aim at Major Banks

These lawsuits, filed by an anonymous plaintiff against a major U.S. bank 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 Brad Edwards of his legal practice, who have long represented survivors of Epstein’s abuse.

“Epstein committed these crimes by means of not only his own vast fortune and influence, but through financial backing and financial support from both private parties and institutions, including BNY,” one lawsuit claims. “Shockingly, 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, declaring the institution “knowingly provided the financial support and the appearance of respectability for Epstein and his accomplices to fuel their global trafficking enterprise under the guise of non-criminal business activities”. The legal action also said Bank of America failed to file mandatory financial alerts.

Legal Experts Weigh In on Legal Hurdles

Experienced lawyers who commented on 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 previously hidden details.

Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor who founded West Coast Trial lawyers, said proof has to show that an institution’s actions resulted in harm.

“I don’t think the lawsuit has much of a chance of success – and clearly I am on the side of the victims, and I want them to get explanations and criminal justice and financial recovery,” the attorney said. Certain allegations might be not directly related from a legal standpoint.

“The case hinges on proof,” Rahmani said. A lawyer 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 “absent the institution’s involvement, the victim maybe wouldn’t have been trafficked”, Rahmani 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 misconduct … the bank’s actions has to have been a substantial factor in leading to the victim’s suffering.

“Through maintaining financial ties to Epstein, is that a decisive element? It’s uncertain.”

Regardless of legal responsibility, suits like this could put institutions on notice that associations with those involved in alleged crimes can have negative consequences for them.

“It represents a reputational disaster,” he said. If the banks try to get these cases thrown out and are unsuccessful, the attorney expects a swift settlement. “No one wants to go litigate any of the legal matters tied to Epstein.”

Attorney Eric Faddis, a trial attorney and principal of the Colorado law firm his firm and former prosecutor, said corporations can be liable. In this scenario, “whether the banks have liability is going to hinge, in part, on what the banks knew, if they were informed of claimed misconduct or illegal acts”, 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 sex-trafficking scheme. The banks would probably not be aware of the particulars of allegations,” the lawyer 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”.

“However, it is unlawful for a bank 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.”

Potential Benefits for Survivors

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. “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 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 accomplish what legislators have failed to do.

“The lawsuits are necessary for complete justice for the victims of Jeffrey Epstein – as well as for potential targets who will suffer from comparable criminal networks – if our financial institutions are not held accountable for the essential role each performs, either in supplying the necessary infrastructure for the criminal enterprise or identifying the financial component of these offenses and putting an end to it.

He added: “Our prospects are significantly higher of effecting meaningful change than Congress, because we know the details and background of the case and are not driven by politics but rather by a sincere intention to create substantial impact and to protect the victims, who have already suffered tremendously.

“Our handling of these issues without any partisan motives and thus will not be swayed by obstructions, protecting wealthy politically connected individuals, or the other embarrassing partisan gamesmanship you and the rest of the world have had to watch unfold recently.”

McCawley said in a declaration: “While legislators attempt to uncover how the financier was able to conduct his criminal sex-trafficking enterprise for decades without being caught, we are taking another important step forward toward justice for victims.”

Bank Responses

When requested for a statement on the lawsuit, the Bank of New York Mellon said: “The allegations in the case are baseless, and we will strongly contest against it.”

Bank of America’s statement likewise stated: “We intend to firmly protect our interests in this matter.”