Lawsuits Targeting Financial Institutions having Epstein Connections May Reveal Fresh Insights on Financier’s Crimes

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

Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s ex-girlfriend, was convicted of human trafficking in a 2021 trial for her involvement in the late financier’s sexual abuse of underage females – and given to two decades behind bars.

At the same time, banks that had worked with Epstein, while not admitting wrongdoing, agreed to pay hundreds of millions in agreements to survivors. Former President Trump even made disclosing the documents related to the Epstein probe part of his election promises, and doubled down on his promise to do so early this year.

Ultimately, Trump’s justice department did not make public these records, and his government has become embroiled in reports about social ties between him and Epstein. Congressional promises to disclose documents have stalled, due to political jockeying and justice department foot-dragging.

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

Legal Actions Aim at Major Banks

The legal complaints, submitted by an unnamed accuser against Bank of America and the BNY Mellon, allege that these financial powerhouses illicitly enabled 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 consistently advocated for Epstein victims.

“The financier carried out these offenses by means of not only his own extraordinary wealth and power, but through access to funding and financial support from both individuals and organizations, including the bank,” one lawsuit states. “Shockingly, the institution had a abundance of knowledge regarding Epstein’s trafficking network but chose profit over protecting the victims.”

The Bank of America suit echoes these allegations, asserting the institution “deliberately supplied the monetary resources and the veneer of institutional legitimacy for Epstein and his accomplices to support their international sex trafficking organization under the pretext of non-criminal business activities”. The suit also said the bank neglected to file suspicious activity reports.

Attorneys Weigh In on Case Challenges

Experienced lawyers who spoke to the situation said proving such a case would be difficult. But they also noted potential results which could offer comfort to accusers or disclosure of long-sought information.

Neama Rahmani, a ex-government lawyer who founded West Coast Trial lawyers, said proof has to show that an institution’s actions led to 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. Certain allegations might be not directly related from a legal standpoint.

“It all comes down to evidence,” he said. A lawyer would need to prove cause and effect, which would mean “but for the defendant’s conduct, the injury wouldn’t have happened”. In this instance, that would boil down to “but for the bank’s conduct, the survivor maybe wouldn’t have been exploited”, Rahmani clarified.

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 standard. So any improper behavior there was, if there was any misconduct … the bank’s actions has to have been a key contributor in leading to the victim’s suffering.

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

Liability aside, such lawsuits could serve as a warning that associations with those involved in alleged crimes can have damaging implications for them.

“It’s a PR nightmare,” Rahmani noted. If the financial institutions try to get these cases dismissed and fail, the attorney anticipates a quick resolution. “No party desires to pursue any of the legal matters tied to Epstein.”

Eric Faddis, a trial attorney and principal of the legal practice Varner Faddis and ex-government lawyer, said companies can be responsible. In this scenario, “whether the banks have liability is going to hinge, in part, on what the banks knew, whether they had any knowledge of alleged abuse or criminal wrongdoing”, and somehow offered support to Epstein.

“But even then, I think it’s going to be hard to sort of loop the banks into some kind of sex-trafficking scheme. The institutions would probably not be aware of the particulars of claims,” the lawyer said. While the financier’s prior legal case was public, “it’s not illegal for a bank to have a customer who’s an unsavory person”.

“However, it is unlawful for a financial firm to in any way be involved in the criminal activity of a client, but those two issues are very different, and so I think that it’s going to be a tough lawsuit against the banks.”

Possible Advantages for Survivors

That said, key elements of the litigation could assist those affected by Epstein.

“The lawsuits have the potential to reveal more information about the ongoing Epstein saga,” the attorney said. “Even though there have been sort of walls put up at every turn for folks seeking this information, when there’s a legal action, there’s a evidence-gathering phase, and that legal procedure often mandates release 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 failed to do.

“Legal actions are essential for full accountability for the survivors of the financier – as well as for potential targets who will be harmed from similar trafficking organizations – if our financial institutions are not made responsible for the crucial part each performs, 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: “We have a far better chance of making a real difference than lawmakers, because we understand the details and history of the matter and are not motivated by partisan interests but rather by a genuine desire to create substantial impact and to protect 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: “While legislators attempt to uncover how Jeffrey Epstein was able to orchestrate his criminal sex-trafficking enterprise for decades without detection, we are taking another important step forward toward legal resolution for victims.”

Bank Responses

When requested for a statement on the legal complaint, the Bank of New York Mellon 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 matter.”