Lawsuits Against Financial Institutions with Epstein Connections May Reveal Fresh Insights on Financier’s Crimes

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

Epstein’s former associate Ghislaine Maxwell, the financier’s one-time partner, 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.

Meanwhile, financial firms that had done business with Epstein, although not accepting fault, agreed to pay hundreds of millions in agreements to victims. Former President Trump even made disclosing the documents related to the Epstein probe part of his election promises, and doubled down on his commitment to do so in recent months.

Ultimately, Trump’s justice department did not release these files, and his government has become involved in reports about social ties between him and Epstein. Congressional promises 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 Aim at Leading Financial Institutions

The legal complaints, filed by an unnamed accuser against Bank of America and the BNY Mellon, claim that these financial powerhouses illicitly enabled Epstein’s sex trafficking. The cases are led by attorney Sigrid McCawley, of Boies Schiller Flexner, and lawyer 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 financial support from both private parties and institutions, including BNY,” one lawsuit states. “Egregiously, BNY had a abundance of knowledge regarding Epstein’s trafficking network but chose profit over protecting the victims.”

The complaint against Bank of America echoes these allegations, declaring the institution “deliberately supplied the financial support and the veneer of institutional legitimacy for Epstein and his co-conspirators to fuel their international sex trafficking organization under the guise of non-criminal business activities”. The legal action also said Bank of America neglected to file suspicious activity reports.

Legal Experts Weigh In on Case Challenges

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

Attorney Neama Rahmani, a ex-government lawyer who founded West Coast Trial lawyers, 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 victims, and I want them to get answers and criminal justice and financial recovery,” the attorney said. Certain allegations might be too tangential from a legal standpoint.

“The case hinges on proof,” he said. A attorney would need to prove cause and effect, which would mean “if not for the bank’s actions, the harm 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 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 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 leading to the victim’s suffering.

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

Regardless of legal responsibility, suits like this could put institutions on notice that associations with those involved in alleged crimes can have negative consequences for them.

“It represents a reputational disaster,” Rahmani noted. If the banks try to get these suits dismissed and are unsuccessful, Rahmani expects a swift settlement. “No party desires to pursue any of the Epstein-related cases.”

Eric Faddis, a litigator and principal of the Colorado law firm Varner Faddis and ex-government lawyer, said corporations can be responsible. In this scenario, “if the institutions bear fault is going to depend, in part, on their level of awareness, if they were informed of claimed misconduct or illegal acts”, and somehow provided assistance to Epstein.

“But even then, I think it’s going to be hard to effectively connect the banks into some kind of sex-trafficking scheme. The institutions would likely not be privy to the particulars of claims,” Faddis said. While the financier’s prior legal case was public, “there’s no law against for a financial institution to have a customer who’s an disreputable individual”.

“However, it is unlawful for a financial firm to in any way be complicit in the illegal actions of a customer, 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

That said, important aspects of the litigation could assist Epstein survivors.

“These cases may uncover additional details about the continuing Epstein story,” Faddis said. “Despite the fact that there have been obstacles erected at every turn for individuals pursuing this data, when there’s a lawsuit, there’s a discovery process, and that legal procedure often mandates release of materials that was not previously public.”

Attorney Brad Edwards said in a statement that the suits could have a preventive impact and achieve what lawmakers have been unable to do.

“Legal actions are essential for full accountability for the survivors of Jeffrey Epstein – as well as for future would-be victims who will be harmed from similar trafficking organizations – if our financial institutions are not made responsible for the essential role each performs, either in supplying the necessary infrastructure for the illegal operation or recognizing the financial component of these crimes and putting an end to it.

He added: “We have a far better chance of effecting meaningful change than lawmakers, because we know the facts and background of the case and are not driven by politics but rather by a sincere intention to make a real difference and to protect the survivors, who have already endured immense pain.

“Our handling of these issues without any political agenda and thus cannot be deterred by obstructions, 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 statement: “As Congress works toward unraveling how Jeffrey Epstein was able to orchestrate his criminal sex-trafficking enterprise for many years without being caught, we are taking another important step forward toward legal resolution for victims.”

Institutional Reactions

Asked for comment on the lawsuit, BNY said: “The claims in the lawsuit are meritless, and we will strongly contest against it.”

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