Legal Actions Against Banks with Epstein Ties Could Shed New Light on Billionaire’s Wrongdoings

Over many years, survivors of the late financier Jeffrey Epstein have demanded justice. At one point, it seemed like they would achieve it.

Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s ex-girlfriend, was found guilty of sex trafficking in a 2021 trial for her role in the late financier’s sexual abuse of teen girls – and sentenced to 20 years imprisonment.

At the same time, financial firms that had done business with Epstein, while not accepting fault, paid substantial sums in settlements to survivors. Former President Trump even made disclosing the documents related to the Epstein probe part of his campaign platform, and reiterated on his commitment to do so in recent months.

In the end, the administration’s Department of Justice did not release these files, and his administration has become involved in allegations about personal connections between him and Epstein. Assurances from lawmakers to release files have stalled, due to partisan maneuvering and justice department foot-dragging.

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

Legal Actions Aim at Leading Financial Institutions

These lawsuits, submitted by an anonymous plaintiff against a major U.S. bank and the BNY Mellon, claim that these financial powerhouses unlawfully facilitated Epstein’s sex trafficking. The suits are helmed by attorney Sigrid McCawley, of Boies Schiller Flexner, and lawyer Brad Edwards of his legal practice, who have consistently advocated for Epstein victims.

“Epstein committed these crimes by means of not only his own vast fortune and power, but through financial backing and financial support from both private parties and organizations, including the bank,” one lawsuit states. “Shockingly, BNY had a plethora of information regarding Epstein’s trafficking network but chose profit over protecting the victims.”

The complaint against Bank of America mirrors these claims, asserting the institution “deliberately supplied the monetary resources and the appearance of respectability for Epstein and his accomplices to support their global trafficking enterprise under the pretext of non-criminal business activities”. The suit also said Bank of America failed to file suspicious activity reports.

Legal Experts Weigh In on Case Challenges

Longtime attorneys who spoke to the situation said establishing liability would be difficult. But they also noted possible outcomes which could provide solace to accusers or disclosure of long-sought information.

Neama Rahmani, a ex-government lawyer who established a legal firm, said evidence has to show that an bank’s conduct 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,” the attorney said. Certain allegations might be too tangential from a juridical perspective.

“It all comes down to evidence,” he said. A lawyer 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 instance, that would translate to “absent the institution’s involvement, the survivor maybe wouldn’t have been exploited”, the lawyer explained.

A lawyer would also have to go beyond a basic causation test. “It’s not solely about indirect cause. 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 substantial factor in leading to the victim’s suffering.

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

Liability aside, such lawsuits could put institutions on notice that relationships with those involved in alleged crimes can have negative consequences for them.

“It’s a PR nightmare,” Rahmani noted. If the financial institutions try to get these suits thrown out and are unsuccessful, Rahmani expects a quick resolution. “No party desires to pursue any of the legal matters tied to Epstein.”

Attorney Eric Faddis, a trial attorney and founder of the legal practice Varner Faddis and ex-government lawyer, said corporations can be liable. In this scenario, “if the institutions bear fault is going to depend, in part, on what the banks knew, if they were informed of alleged abuse or illegal acts”, and in some way provided assistance to Epstein.

“But even then, I think it’s going to be difficult to effectively connect the banks into some kind of sex-trafficking scheme. The banks would likely not be aware of the details of allegations,” the lawyer said. While the financier’s prior legal case 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 involved in the illegal actions of a client, but these aspects are very different, and so I think that it’s going to be a difficult case against the banks.”

Potential Benefits for Victims

That said, important aspects of the legal proceedings could assist those affected by Epstein.

“These cases may uncover additional details about the ongoing Epstein saga,” Faddis said. “Despite the fact that there have been sort of walls put up at every turn for folks pursuing this information, when there’s a legal action, there’s a evidence-gathering phase, and that legal procedure often mandates disclosure of information that was not previously public.”

Edwards said in a statement that the suits could have a preventive impact and accomplish what legislators have failed to do.

“Legal actions are essential for full accountability for the victims of Jeffrey Epstein – as well as for potential targets who will be harmed from comparable criminal networks – if our banks are not made responsible for the essential role each plays, either in supplying the necessary infrastructure for the criminal enterprise or recognizing the monetary aspect of these offenses and stopping it.

Edwards continued: “We have a far better chance of effecting meaningful change than Congress, because we know the details and history 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 survivors, who have already suffered tremendously.

“We approach these matters without any political agenda and thus cannot be deterred 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.”

McCawley said in a declaration: “As Congress works toward unraveling how Jeffrey Epstein was able to orchestrate his criminal sex-trafficking enterprise for many years without detection, we are taking a further significant action forward toward legal resolution for survivors.”

Institutional Reactions

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

Bank of America’s statement likewise stated: “We will vigorously defend ourselves in this matter.”