Lawsuits Against Banks with Epstein Ties Could Reveal Fresh Insights on Financier’s Crimes

Over many years, victims of Jeffrey Epstein have demanded accountability. For a while, it seemed like they would get it.

Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s ex-girlfriend, was convicted of sex trafficking four years ago for her involvement in the deceased billionaire’s sexual abuse of teen girls – and given to 20 years imprisonment.

At the same time, financial firms that had done business with Epstein, while not accepting fault, agreed to pay hundreds of millions in settlements to victims. Donald Trump even made releasing the documents related to the Epstein probe 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 make public these records, and his administration has become embroiled in allegations about social ties between him and Epstein. Assurances from lawmakers to disclose documents have lagged, due to partisan maneuvering and justice department foot-dragging.

However two new lawsuits could provide clarity on Epstein’s operations amid the deadlock – irrespective of their outcome.

Lawsuits Aim at Major Banks

These lawsuits, filed by an unnamed accuser against Bank of America and the Bank of New York Mellon (BNY), allege that these banking giants unlawfully facilitated Epstein’s sex trafficking. The suits are helmed by Sigrid S McCawley, of a prominent law firm, and Brad Edwards of his legal practice, who have consistently advocated for Epstein victims.

“The financier carried out these offenses by means of not only his own extraordinary wealth and power, but through financial backing and monetary assistance from both private parties and organizations, including BNY,” one lawsuit claims. “Shockingly, the institution had a plethora of information regarding Epstein’s trafficking network but chose profit over safeguarding those harmed.”

The complaint against Bank of America mirrors these claims, declaring 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 pretext of non-criminal business activities”. The legal action also said Bank of America neglected to file mandatory financial alerts.

Attorneys Offer Perspectives on Legal Hurdles

Experienced lawyers who spoke to the matter said proving such a case would be challenging. But they also noted possible outcomes which could provide solace to accusers or disclosure of long-sought information.

Neama Rahmani, a ex-government lawyer who established West Coast Trial lawyers, said evidence has to show that an institution’s actions resulted in harm.

“In my view, the case faces significant obstacles – and clearly I am on the side of the victims, and I want them to get answers and legal redress and financial recovery,” Rahmani said. Some claims might be too tangential from a juridical perspective.

“The case hinges on proof,” he said. A attorney would need to prove cause and effect, 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 victim maybe wouldn’t have been trafficked”, the lawyer explained.

An attorney would also have to go beyond a basic causation test. “Is not just ‘but for’ causation. It also has to be a significant element: that is the standard. 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.

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

Liability aside, such lawsuits could serve as a warning that relationships with those accused of wrongdoing can have negative consequences for them.

“It represents a reputational disaster,” he said. If the banks try to get these suits dismissed and fail, the attorney anticipates a quick resolution. “No party desires to pursue 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 corporations can be responsible. In this scenario, “if the institutions bear fault is going to depend, in part, on what the banks knew, whether they had any knowledge of alleged abuse or illegal acts”, 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 trafficking operation. The institutions would probably not be privy to the particulars of claims,” Faddis said. While Epstein’s Florida conviction was known, “it’s not illegal for a bank to have a client who’s an disreputable individual”.

“However, it is unlawful for a financial firm to in any way be involved in the illegal actions of a client, but those two issues are distinct, and so I think that it’s going to be a difficult case against the banks.”

Possible Advantages for Victims

That said, important aspects of the litigation could help Epstein survivors.

“The lawsuits have the potential to reveal more information about the ongoing Epstein saga,” Faddis said. “Despite the fact that there have been sort of walls put up at every turn for individuals seeking this data, when there’s a legal action, there’s a evidence-gathering phase, and that legal procedure often mandates disclosure of materials that was not previously public.”

Edwards said in a statement that the lawsuits could have a preventive impact and achieve what lawmakers have failed to do.

“Legal actions are essential for full accountability 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 required framework for the illegal operation or identifying the financial component of these crimes and stopping it.

Edwards continued: “We have a far better chance of effecting meaningful change than lawmakers, because we know the facts and background of the matter and are not driven by partisan interests but rather by a sincere intention to create substantial impact and to safeguard the victims, who have already suffered tremendously.

“Our handling of these issues 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.”

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 decades without being caught, we are taking another important step forward toward justice for victims.”

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 vigorously defend against it.”

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