Lawsuits Against Financial Institutions having Epstein Ties May Reveal Fresh Insights on Billionaire’s Crimes

For years, survivors of the late financier Jeffrey Epstein have demanded accountability. At one point, it appeared like they would get it.

Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s ex-girlfriend, was convicted of human trafficking four years ago for her role in the deceased billionaire’s sexual abuse of teen girls – and sentenced to 20 years imprisonment.

At the same time, banks that had worked with Epstein, although not admitting wrongdoing, agreed to pay substantial sums in agreements to survivors. Donald Trump even made disclosing the documents related to the Epstein probe part of his election promises, and reiterated on his promise to do so in recent months.

In the end, the administration’s Department of Justice did not make public these files, and his administration has become embroiled in allegations about social ties between him and Epstein. Assurances from lawmakers to release files have stalled, due to political jockeying and justice department foot-dragging.

But two new lawsuits could shed light on Epstein’s operations amid the stalemate – irrespective of their outcome.

Legal Actions Target Major Banks

These lawsuits, filed by an anonymous plaintiff against a major U.S. bank and the Bank of New York Mellon (BNY), allege that these banking giants illicitly enabled Epstein’s sex trafficking. The suits are helmed by Sigrid S McCawley, of a prominent law firm, and Brad Edwards of Edwards Henderson, who have consistently advocated for survivors of Epstein’s abuse.

“Epstein committed these crimes by means of not only his own extraordinary wealth and influence, but through access to funding and financial support from both private parties and institutions, including the bank,” the legal filing states. “Egregiously, BNY had a plethora of information regarding Epstein’s trafficking network but opted for financial gain over safeguarding those harmed.”

The Bank of America suit echoes these allegations, asserting the institution “deliberately supplied the financial support and the appearance of respectability for Epstein and his co-conspirators to fuel their international sex trafficking organization under the pretext of non-criminal business activities”. The suit also said the bank neglected to file mandatory financial alerts.

Legal Experts Offer Perspectives on Legal Hurdles

Longtime attorneys who spoke to the matter said establishing liability would be challenging. But they also noted potential results which could provide solace to accusers or disclosure of long-sought information.

Attorney Neama Rahmani, a ex-government lawyer who established a legal firm, said evidence has to show that an bank’s conduct led to harm.

“In my view, the case faces significant obstacles – and obviously I am on the side of the survivors, and I want them to get answers and legal redress and compensation,” Rahmani said. Certain allegations might be too tangential from a juridical perspective.

“It all comes down to evidence,” Rahmani said. A attorney would need to prove causation, which would mean “if not for the bank’s actions, the harm wouldn’t have occurred”. In this instance, 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. “It’s not solely about indirect cause. It also has to be a significant element: that is the standard. 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 substantial factor? It’s uncertain.”

Liability aside, such lawsuits could put institutions on notice that associations 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 cases dismissed and fail, the attorney anticipates a swift settlement. “No party desires to pursue any of the Epstein-related cases.”

Eric Faddis, a trial attorney and founder of the Colorado law firm Varner Faddis and ex-government lawyer, said corporations can be responsible. In this scenario, “whether the banks have liability is going to depend, in part, on their level of awareness, whether they had any knowledge of claimed misconduct 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 sort of loop the banks into some kind of trafficking operation. The institutions would probably not be privy to the details of claims,” 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 complicit in the criminal activity of a client, but those two issues are very different, 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 legal proceedings could assist those affected by Epstein.

“These cases may uncover additional details about the continuing Epstein story,” the attorney said. “Even though there have been sort of walls put up at every turn for individuals seeking this information, when there’s a legal action, there’s a discovery process, and that discovery process often mandates disclosure of materials that was not formerly available.”

Edwards said in a comment that the lawsuits could have a preventive impact and accomplish what legislators have been unable to do.

“Legal actions are essential for full accountability for the survivors 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 crucial part each performs, either in supplying the necessary infrastructure for the illegal operation or identifying the monetary aspect of these crimes and putting an end to it.

Edwards continued: “Our prospects are significantly higher of effecting meaningful change than lawmakers, because we understand the details and background of the matter and are not motivated by politics but rather by a genuine desire to create substantial impact and to protect the victims, 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 observe recently.”

Attorney Sigrid McCawley said in a statement: “While legislators attempt to uncover how the financier was able to conduct his illegal trafficking operation for many years without detection, we are taking a further significant action forward toward legal resolution for victims.”

Institutional Reactions

When requested for a statement on the legal complaint, BNY said: “The claims in the lawsuit are meritless, and we will strongly contest against it.”

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