Lawsuits Against Banks with Epstein Connections May Reveal Fresh Insights on Financier’s Crimes

For years, survivors of Jeffrey Epstein have sought justice. For a while, it seemed like they would achieve it.

Epstein’s former associate Ghislaine Maxwell, the financier’s one-time partner, was found guilty of human trafficking four years ago for her role in the late financier’s sexual abuse of underage females – and given to 20 years imprisonment.

Meanwhile, banks that had worked with Epstein, although not accepting fault, paid hundreds of millions in settlements to victims. Donald Trump even made releasing the documents related to the Epstein probe part of his campaign platform, and reiterated on his commitment to do so early this year.

Ultimately, Trump’s justice department did not release these files, and his government has become involved in reports about personal connections between him and Epstein. Congressional promises to disclose documents have stalled, due to partisan maneuvering and justice department foot-dragging.

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

Lawsuits Aim at Major Banks

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

“The financier carried out these offenses by means of not only his own vast fortune and power, but through access to funding and monetary assistance from both individuals and institutions, including BNY,” one lawsuit claims. “Shockingly, the institution had a plethora of information regarding Epstein’s trafficking network but opted for financial gain over protecting the victims.”

The Bank of America suit mirrors these claims, declaring the institution “knowingly provided the monetary resources and the veneer of institutional legitimacy for Epstein and his co-conspirators to support their global trafficking enterprise under the guise of legal commercial dealings”. The legal action also said the bank neglected to file mandatory financial alerts.

Attorneys Weigh In on Case Challenges

Longtime attorneys who commented on the situation said proving such a case would be challenging. But they also identified possible outcomes which could provide solace to accusers or disclosure of previously hidden details.

Attorney Neama Rahmani, a ex-government lawyer who founded a legal firm, said proof has to show that an institution’s actions led to harm.

“In my view, the case faces significant obstacles – and obviously I am on the side of the survivors, and I want them to get answers and legal redress and compensation,” the attorney said. Certain allegations might be not directly related from a legal standpoint.

“It all comes down to evidence,” Rahmani said. A lawyer would need to prove causation, which would mean “if not for the bank’s actions, the harm wouldn’t have occurred”. In this case, that would boil down to “but for the bank’s conduct, the victim maybe wouldn’t have been trafficked”, the lawyer explained.

An attorney would also have to go beyond a “but for” measure. “Is not just ‘but for’ causation. 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 bank’s actions has to have been a substantial factor in leading to the plaintiff harm.

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

Liability aside, suits like this could put institutions on notice 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 suits thrown out and are unsuccessful, the attorney expects a swift settlement. “No one wants to go litigate any of the Epstein-related cases.”

Attorney Eric Faddis, a litigator and founder of the Colorado law firm his firm and ex-government lawyer, said companies can be liable. In this scenario, “whether the banks have liability is going to hinge, in part, on their level of awareness, if they were informed 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 hard to effectively connect the banks into some kind of sex-trafficking scheme. The institutions would probably not be privy to the details of allegations,” Faddis said. While the financier’s prior legal case was public, “there’s no law against 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 complicit 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 Victims

Nevertheless, important aspects of the legal proceedings could help Epstein survivors.

“These cases may uncover additional details about the ongoing Epstein saga,” Faddis said. “Even though there have been obstacles erected at every turn for individuals pursuing this information, when there’s a lawsuit, there’s a discovery process, and that legal procedure often mandates disclosure of materials that was not formerly available.”

Attorney Brad Edwards said in a statement that the suits could have a deterrent effect and achieve what lawmakers have failed 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 similar trafficking organizations – if our banks are not made responsible for the crucial part each performs, either in supplying the necessary infrastructure for the criminal enterprise or recognizing the monetary aspect of these offenses and putting an end to it.

He added: “Our prospects are significantly higher of effecting meaningful change than lawmakers, because we understand the facts and history of the matter and are not motivated by politics but rather by a sincere intention to make a real difference and to protect the victims, who have already endured immense pain.

“Our handling of these issues without any partisan motives and thus cannot be deterred by shutdowns, shielding influential figures, or the other embarrassing partisan gamesmanship you and the rest of the world have had to watch unfold recently.”

McCawley said in a declaration: “While legislators attempt to uncover how the financier was able to orchestrate 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 legal complaint, BNY said: “The claims in the lawsuit are meritless, and we will strongly contest against it.”

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