Legal Actions Targeting Banks with Jeffrey Epstein Ties Could Reveal Fresh Insights on Billionaire’s Crimes

Over many years, victims of Jeffrey Epstein have demanded accountability. For a while, it seemed like they would get it.

Ghislaine Maxwell, the financier’s one-time partner, was found guilty of human 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, banks that had worked with Epstein, while not admitting wrongdoing, agreed to pay substantial sums in agreements to survivors. Donald Trump even made releasing the documents related to the Epstein probe part of his campaign platform, and reiterated on his commitment to do so early this year.

Ultimately, the administration’s Department of Justice did not release these files, and his government has become embroiled in reports about social ties between him and Epstein. Congressional promises to disclose documents have lagged, due to partisan maneuvering and justice department foot-dragging.

However two new lawsuits could provide clarity on Epstein’s activities amid the deadlock – irrespective of their result.

Legal Actions Aim at Major Banks

These lawsuits, submitted by an anonymous plaintiff against Bank of America and the BNY Mellon, allege that these banking giants illicitly enabled Epstein’s sex trafficking. The cases are helmed by attorney Sigrid McCawley, of Boies Schiller Flexner, and Brad Edwards of his legal practice, who have long represented survivors of Epstein’s abuse.

“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 individuals and institutions, including the bank,” the legal filing claims. “Shockingly, the institution had a plethora of information regarding Epstein’s sex trafficking operation but opted for financial gain over safeguarding those harmed.”

The complaint against Bank of America echoes these allegations, declaring the institution “deliberately supplied the monetary resources and the veneer of institutional legitimacy for Epstein and his accomplices to support their global trafficking enterprise under the guise of non-criminal business activities”. The legal action also said Bank of America failed to file mandatory financial alerts.

Legal Experts Offer Perspectives on Case Challenges

Experienced lawyers who spoke to the matter said establishing liability would be difficult. But they also identified potential results which could provide solace to plaintiffs or release of long-sought information.

Attorney Neama Rahmani, a ex-government lawyer who established a legal firm, said proof has to show that an bank’s conduct led to harm.

“In my view, the case faces significant obstacles – and clearly I am on the side of the survivors, and I want them to get explanations and legal redress and compensation,” Rahmani said. Certain allegations might be not directly related from a legal standpoint.

“The case hinges on proof,” 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 trafficked”, the lawyer explained.

An attorney would also have to go beyond 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 whatever misconduct there was, if there was any misconduct … the defendant’s misconduct has to have been a key contributor in causing the plaintiff harm.

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

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

“It represents a reputational disaster,” Rahmani noted. If the banks try to get these cases dismissed and are unsuccessful, 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 founder of the legal practice his firm and ex-government lawyer, said corporations can be liable. In this situation, “whether the banks have liability is going to depend, in part, on their level of awareness, if they were informed of alleged abuse or criminal wrongdoing”, and in some way provided assistance to Epstein.

“But even then, I think it’s going to be difficult to sort of loop the financial entities into some kind of sex-trafficking scheme. The institutions would likely not be aware of the details of claims,” the lawyer said. While the financier’s prior legal case was known, “it’s not illegal for a bank to have a client who’s an disreputable individual”.

“It is illegal for a financial firm to somehow be complicit in the criminal activity of a customer, but these aspects are very different, and so I think that it’s going to be a tough lawsuit against the banks.”

Potential Benefits for Victims

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

“The lawsuits have the potential to reveal more information 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 requires release of materials that was not previously public.”

Edwards said in a statement that the lawsuits could have a deterrent effect and accomplish what legislators 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 be harmed 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 illegal operation or recognizing the financial component 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 understand the facts and background of the case and are not driven by partisan interests but rather by a sincere intention to make a real difference and to protect the survivors, who have already suffered tremendously.

“We approach these matters without any partisan motives 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 observe recently.”

McCawley said in a statement: “While legislators attempt to uncover how the financier was able to conduct his criminal sex-trafficking enterprise for decades without being caught, we are taking a further significant action forward toward justice for survivors.”

Institutional Reactions

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 strongly contest against it.”

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