Lawsuits Targeting Banks with Epstein Connections Could Reveal Fresh Insights on Financier’s Crimes

For years, victims of Jeffrey Epstein have sought accountability. At one point, it appeared like they would achieve it.

Ghislaine Maxwell, the financier’s one-time partner, was found guilty of sex trafficking in a 2021 trial for her role in the deceased billionaire’s exploitation of underage females – and sentenced to two decades behind bars.

At the same time, financial firms that had done business with Epstein, while not accepting fault, agreed to pay hundreds of millions in settlements to victims. Donald Trump even made releasing the Epstein investigative files part of his election promises, and doubled down on his promise to do so early this year.

Ultimately, Trump’s justice department did not release these files, and his administration has become embroiled in reports about social ties between him and Epstein. Assurances from lawmakers to release files have lagged, due to political jockeying and delays from federal authorities.

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

Legal Actions Target Leading Financial Institutions

The legal complaints, filed by an anonymous plaintiff against a major U.S. bank and the BNY Mellon, claim that these banking giants illicitly enabled Epstein’s sex trafficking. The suits are helmed by attorney Sigrid McCawley, of Boies Schiller Flexner, and 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 access to funding and financial support from both individuals and institutions, including BNY,” the legal filing claims. “Egregiously, the institution had a plethora of information regarding Epstein’s trafficking network but opted for financial gain over protecting the victims.”

The complaint against Bank of America mirrors these claims, asserting the institution “knowingly provided the monetary resources and the veneer of institutional legitimacy for Epstein and his co-conspirators to fuel their global trafficking enterprise under the pretext of legal commercial dealings”. The suit also said Bank of America neglected to file mandatory financial alerts.

Legal Experts Weigh In on Legal Hurdles

Experienced lawyers who commented on the situation said establishing liability would be challenging. But they also noted potential results which could provide solace to plaintiffs or disclosure of long-sought information.

Neama Rahmani, a ex-government lawyer who founded West Coast Trial lawyers, 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 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.

“The case hinges on proof,” he said. A lawyer would need to prove cause and effect, which would mean “if not for the bank’s actions, the harm wouldn’t have occurred”. In this instance, that would translate to “but for the bank’s conduct, the survivor maybe wouldn’t have been exploited”, Rahmani explained.

An attorney would also have to go beyond a basic causation test. “Is not just ‘but for’ causation. It also has to be a significant element: that is the legal test. So any improper behavior there was, if there was any misconduct … the bank’s actions has to have been a key contributor in causing the plaintiff harm.

“Through maintaining financial ties to Epstein, is that a decisive element? I don’t know.”

Regardless of legal responsibility, suits like this could serve as a warning that associations with those involved in alleged crimes can have damaging implications for them.

“It’s a PR nightmare,” he said. If the banks try to get these cases thrown out and fail, Rahmani anticipates a quick resolution. “No one wants to go litigate any of the legal matters tied to Epstein.”

Eric Faddis, a trial attorney and founder of the legal practice Varner Faddis and former prosecutor, said companies can be responsible. In this scenario, “whether the banks have liability is going to hinge, in part, on their level of awareness, 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 banks into some kind of sex-trafficking scheme. The banks would probably not be aware of the details of allegations,” Faddis said. While the financier’s prior legal case was known, “there’s no law against for a bank to have a client who’s an unsavory person”.

“However, it is unlawful for a bank to in any way be involved 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 tough lawsuit against the institutions.”

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 continuing Epstein story,” the attorney said. “Even though there have been sort of walls put up at every turn for folks pursuing this data, when there’s a lawsuit, there’s a discovery process, and that discovery process often requires disclosure of materials that was not formerly available.”

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

“The lawsuits are necessary for complete justice for the survivors 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 essential role each plays, either in providing the required framework for the criminal enterprise or identifying the monetary aspect of these offenses and putting an end to it.

He added: “Our prospects are significantly higher of making a real difference than Congress, because we know the facts and history of the matter 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 will not be swayed by obstructions, protecting wealthy politically connected individuals, or the other embarrassing partisan gamesmanship you and the rest of the world have had to observe recently.”

Attorney Sigrid McCawley said in a declaration: “While legislators attempt to uncover how the financier was able to orchestrate his illegal trafficking operation for decades without detection, we are taking a further significant action forward toward justice 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.”

Bank of America’s statement likewise stated: “We intend to firmly protect our interests in this case.”