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

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

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

Meanwhile, banks that had worked with Epstein, while not accepting fault, agreed to pay substantial sums in agreements to survivors. Former President Trump even made disclosing the documents related to the Epstein probe part of his campaign platform, and reiterated on his promise 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 reports about personal connections between him and Epstein. Assurances from lawmakers to disclose documents have lagged, due to partisan maneuvering and justice department foot-dragging.

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

Legal Actions Aim at Major Banks

These lawsuits, submitted by an anonymous plaintiff against a major U.S. bank and the BNY Mellon, allege that these banking giants unlawfully facilitated Epstein’s sex trafficking. The suits are led by attorney Sigrid McCawley, of a prominent law firm, and Brad Edwards of his legal practice, who have long represented Epstein victims.

“Epstein committed these crimes by means of not only his own vast fortune and influence, but through financial backing and financial support from both private parties and organizations, including the bank,” the legal filing claims. “Egregiously, the institution had a plethora of information regarding Epstein’s sex trafficking operation but chose profit over protecting the victims.”

The Bank of America suit mirrors these claims, asserting the institution “deliberately supplied the monetary resources and the veneer of institutional legitimacy for Epstein and his co-conspirators to support their global trafficking enterprise under the guise of non-criminal business activities”. The legal action also said the bank neglected to file mandatory financial alerts.

Attorneys Weigh In on Legal Hurdles

Experienced lawyers who commented on the matter said proving such a case would be challenging. But they also identified possible outcomes which could provide solace to accusers or disclosure of long-sought information.

Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor who established a legal firm, said evidence 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 clearly I am on the side of the victims, and I want them to get answers and criminal justice and compensation,” the attorney said. Some claims might be not directly related from a legal standpoint.

“It all comes down to evidence,” Rahmani said. A lawyer would need to prove causation, which would mean “but for the defendant’s conduct, the injury wouldn’t have occurred”. In this case, that would boil down to “absent the institution’s involvement, the victim maybe wouldn’t have been exploited”, Rahmani clarified.

An attorney would also have to go beyond a “but for” measure. “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 misconduct … the defendant’s misconduct has to have been a substantial factor in causing the victim’s suffering.

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

Liability aside, suits like this could put institutions on notice that relationships 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 thrown out and fail, the attorney expects a swift settlement. “No one wants to go litigate any of the Epstein-related cases.”

Attorney Eric Faddis, a trial attorney and principal of the Colorado law firm his firm and ex-government lawyer, said corporations can be liable. In this situation, “whether the banks have liability is going to hinge, in part, on what the banks knew, if they were informed of claimed misconduct or criminal wrongdoing”, and somehow offered support to Epstein.

“But even then, I think it’s going to be difficult to sort of loop the banks into some kind of sex-trafficking scheme. The banks would likely not be aware of the details of claims,” Faddis said. While Epstein’s Florida conviction was public, “there’s no law against for a bank to have a customer 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 very different, and so I think that it’s going to be a tough lawsuit against the institutions.”

Possible Advantages for Victims

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

“These cases may uncover additional details about the continuing Epstein story,” Faddis said. “Even though there have been obstacles erected at every turn for folks pursuing this data, when there’s a lawsuit, there’s a evidence-gathering phase, and that legal procedure often requires disclosure of information that was not previously public.”

Edwards said in a comment that the suits could have a deterrent effect and accomplish 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 banks are not made responsible for the crucial part each plays, either in supplying the required framework for the criminal enterprise or recognizing the monetary aspect of these offenses and putting an end to it.

Edwards continued: “Our prospects are significantly higher of making a real difference than Congress, because we know the facts and background of the matter and are not driven by politics but rather by a genuine desire to create substantial impact and to safeguard the survivors, who have already suffered tremendously.

“Our handling of these issues without any political agenda and thus will not be swayed by obstructions, shielding influential figures, or the other embarrassing partisan gamesmanship you and the rest of the world have had to observe recently.”

McCawley said in a declaration: “As Congress works toward unraveling 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.”

Bank Responses

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

The bank’s response similarly remarked: “We intend to firmly protect our interests in this case.”