Lawsuits Against Banks with Epstein Connections May Shed New Light on Billionaire’s Crimes

Over many years, survivors of the late financier Jeffrey Epstein have sought accountability. At one point, it seemed like they would achieve it.

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

At the same time, banks that had done business with Epstein, although not accepting fault, paid hundreds of millions in settlements to victims. Donald Trump even made disclosing the Epstein investigative files part of his campaign platform, and doubled down on his commitment to do so early this year.

Ultimately, the administration’s Department of Justice did not make public these files, and his government has become embroiled in allegations about social ties between him and Epstein. Assurances from lawmakers to disclose documents have stalled, due to partisan maneuvering and justice department foot-dragging.

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

Legal Actions Target Major Banks

The legal complaints, filed by an unnamed accuser against Bank of America and the BNY Mellon, allege that these financial powerhouses unlawfully facilitated Epstein’s sex trafficking. The cases are led by Sigrid S McCawley, of Boies Schiller Flexner, and Brad Edwards of his legal practice, who have consistently advocated for Epstein victims.

“Epstein committed these crimes by means of not only his own vast fortune and influence, but through financial backing and financial support from both private parties and institutions, including BNY,” one lawsuit states. “Egregiously, the institution had a plethora of information regarding Epstein’s trafficking network but chose profit over safeguarding those harmed.”

The Bank of America suit mirrors these claims, asserting the institution “knowingly provided the monetary resources and the veneer of institutional legitimacy for Epstein and his co-conspirators to support their international sex trafficking organization under the pretext of legal commercial dealings”. The suit also said Bank of America failed 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 identified possible outcomes which could provide solace to accusers or release of long-sought information.

Neama Rahmani, a ex-government lawyer who established West Coast Trial lawyers, 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 explanations and criminal justice and financial recovery,” the attorney said. Certain allegations might be not directly related from a juridical perspective.

“It all comes down to evidence,” he said. A lawyer would need to prove causation, which would mean “if not for the bank’s actions, the harm wouldn’t have happened”. In this instance, that would boil down to “absent the institution’s involvement, the victim maybe wouldn’t have been trafficked”, the lawyer clarified.

An attorney 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 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 victim’s suffering.

“Through maintaining financial ties to Epstein, is that a substantial factor? It’s uncertain.”

Liability aside, suits like this could serve as a warning that relationships with those accused of wrongdoing can have damaging implications for them.

“It’s a PR nightmare,” Rahmani noted. If the financial institutions try to get these suits dismissed and fail, Rahmani expects a quick resolution. “No one wants to go litigate any of the legal matters tied to Epstein.”

Attorney Eric Faddis, a trial attorney and principal of the legal practice Varner Faddis and ex-government lawyer, said corporations can be liable. In this scenario, “whether the banks have liability is going to hinge, in part, on their level of awareness, whether they had any knowledge of claimed misconduct or criminal wrongdoing”, and somehow offered support to Epstein.

“But even then, I think it’s going to be difficult to effectively connect the banks into some kind of sex-trafficking scheme. The institutions would probably not be privy to the details of claims,” Faddis said. While Epstein’s Florida conviction was public, “it’s not illegal for a financial institution to have a customer who’s an disreputable individual”.

“However, it is unlawful for a financial firm to in any way be involved in the criminal activity of a client, but those two issues 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 help those affected by Epstein.

“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 disclosure of information that was not previously public.”

Edwards said in a statement that the suits could have a deterrent effect and achieve what lawmakers have failed to do.

“The lawsuits are necessary for complete justice for the victims of Jeffrey Epstein – as well as for future would-be victims who will suffer from similar trafficking organizations – if our banks are not made responsible for the essential role each performs, either in supplying the necessary infrastructure for the illegal operation or identifying the financial component of these offenses and putting an end to it.

Edwards continued: “We have a far better chance of effecting meaningful change than lawmakers, because we understand the facts and history of the case and are not driven by politics but rather by a genuine desire to create substantial impact and to safeguard the victims, who have already endured immense pain.

“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 watch unfold recently.”

Attorney Sigrid McCawley said in a statement: “While legislators attempt to uncover how the financier was able to orchestrate his criminal sex-trafficking enterprise for many years without being caught, we are taking another important step forward toward legal resolution for survivors.”

Bank Responses

Asked for comment on the lawsuit, BNY said: “The allegations in the case are baseless, and we will vigorously defend against it.”

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