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

Over many years, victims of Jeffrey Epstein have demanded accountability. At one point, it seemed like they would achieve it.

Epstein’s former associate Ghislaine Maxwell, the financier’s one-time partner, was convicted of sex trafficking in a 2021 trial for her role in the late financier’s sexual abuse of underage females – and sentenced to 20 years imprisonment.

Meanwhile, banks that had worked with Epstein, although not accepting fault, agreed to pay hundreds of millions in agreements to victims. Donald Trump even made disclosing the documents related to the Epstein probe part of his election promises, and reiterated on his promise to do so in recent months.

Ultimately, the administration’s Department of Justice did not release these files, and his government has become embroiled in reports about personal connections between him and Epstein. Congressional promises to release files have stalled, due to political jockeying and delays from federal authorities.

But recent legal actions could provide clarity on Epstein’s activities amid the stalemate – irrespective of their outcome.

Legal Actions Target Major Banks

These lawsuits, filed by an unnamed accuser against a major U.S. bank and the Bank of New York Mellon (BNY), claim that these financial powerhouses illicitly enabled Epstein’s sex trafficking. The cases 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 extraordinary wealth and influence, but through financial backing and financial support from both private parties and organizations, including the bank,” one lawsuit states. “Egregiously, the institution had a plethora of information regarding Epstein’s sex trafficking operation but opted for financial gain over safeguarding those harmed.”

The Bank of America suit echoes these allegations, declaring the institution “deliberately supplied the financial support and the veneer of institutional legitimacy for Epstein and his accomplices to fuel their international sex trafficking organization under the guise of legal commercial dealings”. The legal action also said Bank of America neglected to file mandatory financial alerts.

Attorneys Offer Perspectives on Case Challenges

Longtime attorneys who commented on the situation said establishing liability would be difficult. But they also noted potential results which could provide solace to plaintiffs or disclosure of previously hidden details.

Attorney Neama Rahmani, a ex-government lawyer who established a legal firm, said proof 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 victims, and I want them to get answers and legal redress and financial recovery,” the attorney said. Certain allegations might be too tangential from a juridical perspective.

“It all comes down to evidence,” he said. A lawyer would need to prove cause and effect, which would mean “but for the defendant’s conduct, the injury wouldn’t have happened”. In this instance, that would translate to “but for the bank’s conduct, the survivor maybe wouldn’t have been exploited”, the lawyer clarified.

A lawyer would also have to go beyond a “but for” measure. “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 wrongdoing … the defendant’s misconduct has to have been a key contributor in leading to the plaintiff harm.

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

Liability aside, suits like this could put institutions on notice that relationships with those involved in alleged crimes can have negative consequences for them.

“It represents a reputational disaster,” Rahmani noted. If the banks try to get these cases thrown out and are unsuccessful, the attorney expects a quick resolution. “No party desires to pursue any of the legal matters tied to Epstein.”

Attorney Eric Faddis, a litigator and founder of the Colorado law firm Varner Faddis and ex-government lawyer, said corporations can be responsible. In this scenario, “if the institutions bear fault is going to hinge, in part, on their level of awareness, 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 sort of loop the banks into some kind of trafficking operation. The institutions would likely not be privy to the particulars of allegations,” the lawyer said. While Epstein’s Florida conviction was known, “there’s no law against for a bank to have a client who’s an unsavory person”.

“It is illegal for a bank to somehow be involved in the criminal activity of a customer, but those two issues are distinct, and so I think that it’s going to be a tough lawsuit against the institutions.”

Possible Advantages for Victims

Nevertheless, key elements of the litigation could assist those affected by Epstein.

“These cases may uncover additional details about the continuing Epstein story,” Faddis said. “Even though there have been obstacles erected at every turn for individuals seeking this information, when there’s a lawsuit, there’s a evidence-gathering phase, and that discovery process often mandates disclosure of materials that was not formerly available.”

Attorney Brad Edwards said in a comment that the suits could have a deterrent effect and accomplish what legislators have been unable to do.

“Legal actions are essential for full accountability for the survivors of Jeffrey Epstein – as well as for future would-be victims who will be harmed from comparable criminal networks – if our banks are not held accountable for the crucial part each performs, either in supplying the required framework for the illegal operation or recognizing the financial component of these crimes and putting an end to it.

Edwards continued: “We have a far better chance of making a real difference than lawmakers, because we know the facts and history of the case and are not driven by politics but rather by a sincere intention to make a real difference and to safeguard the survivors, who have already suffered tremendously.

“Our handling of these issues without any political agenda 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: “As Congress works toward unraveling how the financier was able to conduct his criminal sex-trafficking enterprise for many years without detection, we are taking a further significant action forward toward justice for survivors.”

Institutional Reactions

Asked for comment on the lawsuit, the Bank of New York Mellon said: “The claims in the lawsuit are meritless, and we will strongly contest against it.”

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