Legal Actions Against Financial Institutions having Epstein Connections Could Shed New Light on Financier’s Crimes

For years, survivors of Jeffrey Epstein have sought accountability. At one point, it seemed like they would achieve it.

Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s ex-girlfriend, was convicted of human trafficking in a 2021 trial for her role in the deceased billionaire’s exploitation of underage females – and sentenced to 20 years imprisonment.

At the same time, banks that had done business with Epstein, although not accepting fault, paid hundreds of millions in settlements to survivors. Former President Trump even made releasing the documents related to the Epstein probe part of his campaign platform, and doubled down on his commitment to do so in recent months.

Ultimately, the administration’s Department of Justice did not make public these records, and his government has become embroiled in reports about personal connections between him and Epstein. Congressional promises to disclose documents have lagged, due to political jockeying and justice department foot-dragging.

But recent legal actions could provide clarity on Epstein’s activities amid the stalemate – irrespective of their result.

Legal Actions Aim at Leading Financial Institutions

These lawsuits, filed by an unnamed accuser against a major U.S. bank and the BNY Mellon, allege that these banking giants unlawfully facilitated Epstein’s trafficking ring. The cases are helmed by attorney Sigrid McCawley, of Boies Schiller Flexner, and Brad Edwards of his legal practice, who have long represented Epstein victims.

“Epstein committed these crimes by means of not only his own extraordinary wealth and power, but through access to funding and monetary assistance from both private parties and institutions, including BNY,” one lawsuit states. “Shockingly, the institution had a abundance of knowledge regarding Epstein’s sex trafficking operation but chose profit over safeguarding those harmed.”

The Bank of America suit mirrors these claims, declaring the institution “deliberately supplied the financial support and the appearance of respectability for Epstein and his co-conspirators to support their global trafficking enterprise under the pretext of non-criminal business activities”. The suit also said Bank of America neglected to file mandatory financial alerts.

Attorneys Weigh In on Legal Hurdles

Experienced lawyers who commented on the situation said proving such a case would be difficult. But they also identified potential results which could offer comfort to accusers or disclosure of previously hidden details.

Neama Rahmani, a ex-government lawyer who established West Coast Trial lawyers, said evidence has to show that an institution’s actions resulted in harm.

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

“The case hinges on proof,” Rahmani 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 boil down to “but for the bank’s conduct, the victim maybe wouldn’t have been trafficked”, the lawyer clarified.

A lawyer would also have to go further than a basic causation test. “It’s not solely about indirect cause. It also has to be a significant element: that is the standard. So any improper behavior there was, if there was any misconduct … the defendant’s misconduct has to have been a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff harm.

“By engaging in a business relationship with Epstein, is that a decisive element? It’s uncertain.”

Regardless of legal responsibility, such lawsuits could serve as a warning that associations with those accused of wrongdoing can have damaging implications for them.

“It’s a PR nightmare,” Rahmani noted. If the banks try to get these cases dismissed and are unsuccessful, the attorney anticipates a quick resolution. “No one wants to go litigate any of the Epstein-related cases.”

Attorney Eric Faddis, a litigator and principal of the legal practice his firm and former prosecutor, said corporations can be liable. In this situation, “if the institutions bear fault is going to hinge, in part, on their level of awareness, if they were informed of claimed misconduct or illegal acts”, and in some way offered support to Epstein.

“But even then, I think it’s going to be difficult to effectively connect the banks into some kind of trafficking operation. The institutions would probably not be aware of the details of allegations,” Faddis said. While Epstein’s Florida conviction was known, “it’s not illegal for a financial institution to have a customer who’s an unsavory person”.

“It is illegal for a financial firm to somehow be complicit in the illegal actions 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.”

Possible Advantages 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,” Faddis said. “Even though there have been sort of walls put up at every turn for individuals pursuing this data, when there’s a lawsuit, there’s a evidence-gathering phase, and that legal procedure often requires disclosure of materials that was not formerly available.”

Attorney Brad Edwards said in a statement that the lawsuits could have a deterrent effect and achieve what lawmakers 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 held accountable for the essential role each performs, either in supplying the required framework for the criminal enterprise or identifying the monetary aspect of these crimes and stopping it.

He added: “We have a far better chance of effecting meaningful change than Congress, because we understand the details and history of the case and are not motivated by politics but rather by a sincere intention to create substantial impact and to safeguard the survivors, who have already endured immense pain.

“We approach these matters without any partisan motives 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: “As Congress works toward unraveling how the financier was able to conduct his criminal sex-trafficking enterprise for many years without being caught, we are taking another important step forward toward legal resolution for survivors.”

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 case.”