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

For years, survivors of Jeffrey Epstein have demanded justice. At one point, it appeared like they would get it.

Ghislaine Maxwell, the financier’s one-time partner, was found guilty of human trafficking four years ago for her involvement in the late financier’s sexual abuse of teen girls – and sentenced to 20 years imprisonment.

Meanwhile, banks that had done business with Epstein, while not accepting fault, paid 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 commitment to do so in recent months.

In the end, Trump’s justice department did not release these files, and his government has become involved in allegations about personal connections between him and Epstein. Assurances from lawmakers to release files have lagged, due to political jockeying and justice department foot-dragging.

However recent legal actions could shed light on Epstein’s operations amid the deadlock – regardless of their result.

Lawsuits Target Leading Financial Institutions

The legal complaints, filed by an anonymous plaintiff against Bank of America and the BNY Mellon, allege that these banking giants illicitly enabled Epstein’s sex trafficking. The suits are helmed by Sigrid S McCawley, of Boies Schiller Flexner, and Brad Edwards of Edwards Henderson, who have consistently advocated for survivors of Epstein’s abuse.

“Epstein committed these crimes by means of not only his own vast fortune and power, but through access to funding and monetary assistance from both private parties and organizations, including the bank,” one lawsuit states. “Shockingly, BNY had a abundance of knowledge regarding Epstein’s sex trafficking operation but chose profit over protecting the victims.”

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

Legal Experts Weigh In on Case Challenges

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

Attorney 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.

“I don’t think the lawsuit has much of a chance of success – and obviously 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 too tangential 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 harm wouldn’t have happened”. In this instance, that would boil down to “absent the institution’s involvement, the survivor maybe wouldn’t have been trafficked”, Rahmani explained.

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 substantial factor: that is the standard. So whatever misconduct there was, if there was any misconduct … the defendant’s misconduct has to have been a key contributor in causing the victim’s suffering.

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

Liability aside, such lawsuits could serve as a warning that associations with those accused of wrongdoing can have negative consequences for them.

“It’s a PR nightmare,” he said. If the banks try to get these cases dismissed and fail, the attorney anticipates a swift settlement. “No one wants to go litigate any of the legal matters tied to Epstein.”

Eric Faddis, a litigator and founder of the legal practice Varner Faddis and ex-government lawyer, said corporations can be responsible. In this situation, “if the institutions bear fault is going to hinge, in part, on what the banks knew, whether they had any knowledge of claimed misconduct or illegal acts”, and somehow offered support to Epstein.

“But even then, I think it’s going to be hard to effectively connect the banks into some kind of trafficking operation. The banks would likely not be privy to the particulars of claims,” the lawyer said. While Epstein’s Florida conviction was public, “it’s not illegal for a bank to have a client who’s an disreputable individual”.

“It is illegal for a bank to somehow be involved 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, important aspects of the legal proceedings could help Epstein survivors.

“The lawsuits have the potential to reveal more information about the continuing Epstein story,” the attorney 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 discovery process often mandates release of information that was not formerly available.”

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

“The lawsuits are necessary for complete justice for the survivors of the financier – as well as for future would-be victims who will be harmed from comparable criminal networks – if our financial institutions are not held accountable for the crucial part each plays, either in supplying the necessary infrastructure for the illegal operation or identifying the monetary aspect of these crimes and stopping it.

He added: “Our prospects are significantly higher of effecting meaningful change than lawmakers, because we understand the details and background of the matter and are not driven by partisan interests but rather by a genuine desire to create substantial impact 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, shielding influential figures, 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 Jeffrey Epstein was able to orchestrate his illegal trafficking operation for many years without detection, we are taking a further significant action forward toward legal resolution for victims.”

Bank Responses

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

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