Legal Actions Targeting Financial Institutions having Epstein Connections May Shed New Light on Financier’s Wrongdoings

For years, survivors of the late financier Jeffrey Epstein have sought accountability. At one point, it appeared like they would get it.

Epstein’s former associate 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 teen girls – and given to 20 years imprisonment.

Meanwhile, financial firms that had done business with Epstein, while not admitting wrongdoing, paid substantial sums in settlements to victims. Donald Trump even made releasing the documents related to the Epstein probe part of his campaign platform, 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 embroiled in allegations about social ties between him and Epstein. Assurances from lawmakers to release files have stalled, due to partisan maneuvering and delays from federal authorities.

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

Lawsuits Target Leading Financial Institutions

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 trafficking ring. The cases are helmed by Sigrid S McCawley, of Boies Schiller Flexner, and Brad Edwards of his legal practice, who have long represented Epstein victims.

“The financier carried out these offenses by means of not only his own extraordinary wealth and power, but through financial backing and financial support from both individuals and organizations, including BNY,” one lawsuit states. “Egregiously, the institution 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 “knowingly provided the financial support and the veneer of institutional legitimacy for Epstein and his co-conspirators to fuel their global trafficking enterprise under the guise of non-criminal business activities”. The suit also said the bank neglected to file mandatory financial alerts.

Attorneys Weigh In on Legal Hurdles

Longtime attorneys who commented on the matter said proving such a case would be challenging. But they also noted possible outcomes which could offer comfort to accusers or release of previously hidden details.

Neama Rahmani, a ex-government lawyer who founded a legal firm, said evidence has to show that an bank’s conduct resulted in 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 answers and legal redress and financial recovery,” the attorney said. Certain allegations might be too tangential from a legal standpoint.

“The case hinges on proof,” he said. A lawyer would need to prove causation, which would mean “but for the defendant’s conduct, the harm wouldn’t have occurred”. In this case, that would translate to “but for the bank’s conduct, the survivor maybe wouldn’t have been exploited”, 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 substantial factor: that is the legal test. So whatever misconduct there was, if there was any wrongdoing … the bank’s actions has to have been a key contributor in causing the victim’s suffering.

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

Regardless of legal responsibility, such lawsuits could serve as a warning that associations with those involved in alleged crimes can have negative consequences for them.

“It’s a PR nightmare,” he said. If the financial institutions try to get these suits thrown out and fail, the attorney anticipates a quick resolution. “No party desires to pursue any of the Epstein-related cases.”

Attorney Eric Faddis, a trial attorney and principal of the Colorado law firm 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 their level of awareness, if they were informed of alleged abuse or illegal acts”, and somehow provided assistance to Epstein.

“But even then, I think it’s going to be hard to sort of loop the financial entities into some kind of trafficking operation. The banks would likely not be privy to the details of allegations,” Faddis said. While the financier’s prior legal case was public, “it’s not illegal for a bank to have a customer who’s an disreputable individual”.

“However, it is unlawful for a financial firm to somehow be involved in the illegal actions 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

Nevertheless, key elements of the litigation could assist Epstein survivors.

“These cases may uncover additional details about the continuing Epstein story,” Faddis said. “Even though there have been sort of walls put up at every turn for individuals seeking this information, when there’s a lawsuit, there’s a discovery process, and that legal procedure often requires disclosure of information that was not previously public.”

Edwards said in a statement that the suits could have a preventive impact and accomplish what legislators 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 banks are not made responsible for the essential role each plays, either in providing the required framework for the criminal enterprise or recognizing the financial component of these offenses and stopping it.

He added: “We have a far better chance of making a real difference than lawmakers, because we understand the facts and background of the case and are not motivated by partisan interests but rather by a sincere intention to create substantial impact and to safeguard the survivors, who have already suffered tremendously.

“We approach these matters without any partisan motives 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.”

McCawley said in a statement: “While legislators attempt to uncover how Jeffrey Epstein was able to conduct his illegal trafficking operation for decades without detection, we are taking a further significant action forward toward justice for survivors.”

Bank Responses

When requested for a statement on the legal complaint, the Bank of New York Mellon said: “The claims in the lawsuit are meritless, and we will vigorously defend against it.”

The bank’s response similarly remarked: “We will vigorously defend ourselves in this case.”