Legal Actions Against Financial Institutions with Jeffrey Epstein Ties Could Shed New Light on Billionaire’s Crimes

For years, survivors of Jeffrey Epstein have sought justice. For a while, it seemed like they would achieve it.

Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s ex-girlfriend, was convicted of human trafficking four years ago for her role in the late financier’s exploitation of underage females – and sentenced to 20 years imprisonment.

Meanwhile, financial firms that had done business with Epstein, although not admitting wrongdoing, agreed to pay hundreds of millions in agreements to survivors. Donald Trump even made releasing the Epstein investigative files part of his election promises, and reiterated on his promise to do so in recent months.

Ultimately, the administration’s Department of Justice did not release these files, and his government has become embroiled in allegations about social ties between him and Epstein. Assurances from lawmakers to release files have stalled, due to partisan maneuvering and justice department foot-dragging.

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

Lawsuits Target Major Banks

These lawsuits, submitted by an anonymous plaintiff against a major U.S. bank and the Bank of New York Mellon (BNY), allege that these financial powerhouses unlawfully facilitated Epstein’s sex trafficking. The cases 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 power, but through financial backing and financial support from both individuals and organizations, including the bank,” one lawsuit claims. “Shockingly, the institution had a abundance of knowledge regarding Epstein’s trafficking network but chose profit over protecting the victims.”

The complaint against Bank of America mirrors these claims, asserting the institution “knowingly provided the financial support and the appearance of respectability for Epstein and his accomplices to support their global trafficking enterprise under the guise of non-criminal business activities”. The suit also said Bank of America neglected to file mandatory financial alerts.

Attorneys Offer Perspectives on Legal Hurdles

Longtime attorneys who commented on the matter said proving such a case would be challenging. But they also identified possible outcomes which could provide solace to plaintiffs or release of long-sought information.

Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor who established a legal firm, 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 obviously I am on the side of the victims, and I want them to get explanations and legal redress and compensation,” Rahmani said. Certain allegations might be not directly related from a juridical perspective.

“The case hinges on proof,” he said. A lawyer would need to prove causation, which would mean “but for the defendant’s conduct, the injury wouldn’t have happened”. In this case, that would translate to “absent the institution’s involvement, the victim maybe wouldn’t have been exploited”, the lawyer explained.

A lawyer would also have to go beyond a “but for” measure. “Is not just ‘but for’ causation. It also has to be a substantial factor: that is the legal test. So any improper behavior there was, if there was any wrongdoing … the bank’s actions has to have been a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff harm.

“Through maintaining financial ties to Epstein, is that a decisive element? I don’t know.”

Liability aside, 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 financial institutions try to get these cases dismissed and fail, Rahmani expects a quick resolution. “No one wants to go litigate any of the legal matters tied to Epstein.”

Attorney Eric Faddis, a litigator and founder of the legal practice his firm and ex-government lawyer, said corporations can be responsible. In this scenario, “whether the banks have liability is going to depend, in part, on what the banks knew, whether they had any knowledge of claimed misconduct or illegal acts”, and in some way provided assistance to Epstein.

“But even then, I think it’s going to be hard to effectively connect the banks into some kind of trafficking operation. The institutions would probably not be aware of the particulars of claims,” Faddis said. While Epstein’s Florida conviction was public, “there’s no law against for a bank to have a client who’s an disreputable individual”.

“It is illegal for a financial firm to in any way 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 institutions.”

Potential Benefits for Victims

Nevertheless, key elements of the legal proceedings could assist Epstein survivors.

“The lawsuits have the potential to reveal more information about the ongoing Epstein saga,” the attorney said. “Even though 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 legal procedure often mandates disclosure of information that was not formerly available.”

Attorney Brad Edwards said in a comment that the suits could have a preventive impact and accomplish what lawmakers have been unable 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 banks are not held accountable for the essential role each performs, either in providing the necessary infrastructure for the illegal operation or recognizing the monetary aspect of these offenses and stopping it.

He added: “Our prospects are significantly higher of making a real difference 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 make a real difference and to protect the victims, who have already suffered tremendously.

“We approach these matters without any political agenda and thus will not be swayed by shutdowns, protecting wealthy politically connected individuals, or the other embarrassing partisan gamesmanship you and the rest of the world have had to watch unfold recently.”

Attorney Sigrid McCawley said in a declaration: “As Congress works toward unraveling 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 justice for survivors.”

Institutional Reactions

Asked for comment on the legal complaint, 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.”