Lawsuits Targeting Banks having Epstein Ties May Reveal Fresh Insights on Financier’s Crimes

For years, victims of Jeffrey Epstein have demanded justice. At one point, it appeared like they would get it.

Epstein’s former associate Ghislaine Maxwell, the financier’s one-time partner, was convicted of human trafficking in a 2021 trial for her involvement in the late financier’s exploitation of underage females – and given to 20 years imprisonment.

At the same time, banks that had done business with Epstein, although not admitting wrongdoing, paid substantial sums in settlements to survivors. Donald Trump even made disclosing the Epstein investigative files part of his campaign platform, and doubled down on his promise to do so early this year.

Ultimately, the administration’s Department of Justice did not make public these files, 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 partisan maneuvering 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 banking giants illicitly enabled Epstein’s sex trafficking. The cases are helmed 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 extraordinary wealth and influence, but through financial backing and monetary assistance from both private parties and organizations, including BNY,” one lawsuit states. “Egregiously, the institution had a plethora of information regarding Epstein’s trafficking network but opted for financial gain over safeguarding those harmed.”

The complaint against Bank of America echoes these allegations, declaring the institution “deliberately supplied the monetary resources and the veneer of institutional legitimacy for Epstein and his accomplices to fuel their international sex trafficking organization under the pretext of legal commercial dealings”. The legal action also said the bank failed to file mandatory financial alerts.

Legal Experts Offer Perspectives on Case Challenges

Experienced lawyers who commented on the situation said proving such a case would be difficult. But they also identified possible outcomes which could offer comfort to accusers or disclosure of long-sought information.

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

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

“It all comes down to evidence,” Rahmani said. A attorney would need to prove cause and effect, which would mean “if not for the bank’s actions, the injury wouldn’t have occurred”. In this case, that would boil down to “but for the bank’s conduct, the victim maybe wouldn’t have been trafficked”, the lawyer explained.

A lawyer 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 any improper behavior there was, if there was any wrongdoing … the defendant’s misconduct has to have been a key contributor in leading to the plaintiff harm.

“By engaging in a business relationship with Epstein, is that a substantial factor? I don’t know.”

Regardless of legal responsibility, such lawsuits could serve as a warning that relationships with those involved in alleged crimes can have damaging implications for them.

“It’s a PR nightmare,” he said. If the financial institutions try to get these suits thrown out and fail, the attorney expects a swift settlement. “No one wants to go litigate any of the legal matters tied to Epstein.”

Eric Faddis, a litigator 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 depend, in part, on what the banks knew, whether they had any knowledge of alleged abuse or criminal wrongdoing”, and somehow offered support to Epstein.

“However, even in that case, I think it’s going to be difficult to sort of loop the financial entities into some kind of trafficking operation. The banks would probably not be privy to the details of allegations,” Faddis said. While Epstein’s Florida conviction was known, “it’s not illegal for a financial institution to have a client who’s an unsavory person”.

“It is illegal for a bank to in any way be complicit in the illegal actions 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 institutions.”

Possible Advantages for Victims

Nevertheless, important aspects of the litigation could help Epstein survivors.

“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 information that was not previously public.”

Edwards said in a comment that the lawsuits could have a deterrent effect and achieve what lawmakers have failed to do.

“Legal actions are essential for full accountability for the victims of the financier – as well as for potential targets who will suffer from similar trafficking organizations – if our financial institutions are not held accountable for the crucial part each plays, either in supplying the required framework for the illegal operation or identifying the monetary aspect of these offenses and putting an end to it.

He added: “We have a far better chance of making a real difference than lawmakers, because we know the details and history of the matter and are not driven by partisan interests but rather by a sincere intention to create substantial impact and to safeguard the victims, who have already endured immense pain.

“We approach these matters without any political agenda and thus will not be swayed by obstructions, shielding influential figures, 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 declaration: “While legislators attempt to uncover how Jeffrey Epstein was able to conduct his criminal sex-trafficking enterprise for decades without being caught, 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 allegations in the case are baseless, and we will vigorously defend against it.”

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