Legal Actions Against Financial Institutions having Epstein Ties May Shed New Light on Financier’s Wrongdoings

For years, victims of the late financier Jeffrey Epstein have demanded justice. For a while, it seemed like they would get it.

Epstein’s former associate Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s ex-girlfriend, was found guilty of human trafficking four years ago for her role in the late financier’s sexual abuse of teen girls – and given to 20 years imprisonment.

Meanwhile, banks that had worked with Epstein, while not admitting wrongdoing, agreed to pay hundreds of millions in settlements to survivors. Donald Trump even made disclosing the Epstein investigative files part of his election promises, and doubled down on his promise to do so early this year.

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

However recent legal actions could provide clarity on Epstein’s operations amid the stalemate – irrespective of their result.

Legal Actions Aim at Major Banks

The legal complaints, filed by an anonymous plaintiff against a major U.S. bank and the Bank of New York Mellon (BNY), allege that these banking giants unlawfully facilitated Epstein’s sex trafficking. The suits are led by Sigrid S McCawley, of a prominent law firm, and lawyer 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 vast fortune and power, but through access to funding and monetary assistance from both private parties and institutions, including the bank,” the legal filing states. “Shockingly, BNY 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 “knowingly provided the financial support and the veneer of institutional legitimacy for Epstein and his co-conspirators to fuel their international sex trafficking organization under the guise of non-criminal business activities”. The suit also said Bank of America failed to file suspicious activity reports.

Attorneys Weigh In on Case Challenges

Longtime attorneys who commented on the matter said establishing liability would be challenging. But they also identified potential results which could provide solace to plaintiffs or disclosure of long-sought information.

Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor who established 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 survivors, and I want them to get answers and criminal justice and financial recovery,” the attorney said. Certain allegations might be too tangential from a juridical perspective.

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

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 legal test. So whatever misconduct there was, if there was any wrongdoing … the defendant’s misconduct has to have been a key contributor in causing the victim’s suffering.

“By engaging in a business relationship with 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 represents a reputational disaster,” Rahmani noted. If the banks try to get these suits thrown out and fail, Rahmani anticipates 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 legal practice Varner Faddis and former prosecutor, said corporations can be responsible. In this scenario, “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 criminal wrongdoing”, and in some way offered support to Epstein.

“However, even in that case, 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 privy to the details of allegations,” Faddis said. While the financier’s prior legal case was known, “it’s not illegal for a bank to have a customer who’s an unsavory person”.

“It is illegal for a financial firm to somehow be involved in the criminal activity of a client, but these aspects 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 help Epstein survivors.

“The lawsuits have the potential to reveal more information about the ongoing Epstein saga,” the attorney said. “Despite the fact that there have been obstacles erected at every turn for individuals seeking this data, when there’s a legal action, there’s a evidence-gathering phase, and that discovery process often requires release of materials that was not formerly available.”

Attorney Brad Edwards said in a comment that the lawsuits could have a deterrent effect and accomplish what lawmakers have failed to do.

“The lawsuits are necessary for complete justice for the victims of Jeffrey Epstein – as well as for potential targets who will be harmed from comparable criminal networks – if our banks are not held accountable for the crucial part each performs, either in providing the necessary infrastructure for the illegal operation or identifying the monetary aspect of these crimes and stopping it.

He added: “We have a far better chance of effecting meaningful change than lawmakers, because we understand the details and background of the matter and are not driven by politics but rather by a sincere intention to create substantial impact and to safeguard the victims, who have already endured immense pain.

“We approach these matters without any partisan motives and thus cannot be deterred by obstructions, protecting wealthy politically connected individuals, or the other shameful political maneuvering you and the rest of the world have had to observe recently.”

Attorney Sigrid McCawley said in a statement: “While legislators attempt to uncover how the financier was able to orchestrate his illegal trafficking operation for decades without detection, we are taking another important step forward toward legal resolution for survivors.”

Institutional Reactions

Asked for comment on the lawsuit, 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 likewise stated: “We will vigorously defend ourselves in this case.”