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

Over many years, survivors of the late financier Jeffrey Epstein have demanded justice. At one point, it seemed like they would get it.

Epstein’s former associate Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s ex-girlfriend, was convicted of sex trafficking four years ago for her role in the late financier’s sexual abuse of teen girls – and sentenced to two decades behind bars.

At the same time, banks that had done business with Epstein, while not admitting wrongdoing, paid substantial sums in agreements to survivors. Former President 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.

In the end, Trump’s justice department did not release these records, and his administration has become involved in reports about personal connections between him and Epstein. Assurances from lawmakers to disclose documents have stalled, due to partisan maneuvering and delays from federal authorities.

However recent legal actions could shed light on Epstein’s activities amid the stalemate – regardless of their result.

Lawsuits Target Major Banks

These lawsuits, filed by an unnamed accuser against a major U.S. bank and the Bank of New York Mellon (BNY), allege that these financial powerhouses illicitly enabled Epstein’s sex trafficking. The cases are helmed by attorney Sigrid McCawley, of a prominent law firm, and 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 influence, but through access to funding and financial support from both private parties and organizations, including BNY,” one lawsuit claims. “Egregiously, BNY had a abundance of knowledge regarding Epstein’s trafficking network but opted for financial gain over safeguarding those harmed.”

The Bank of America suit mirrors these claims, declaring the institution “deliberately supplied the financial support and the appearance of respectability for Epstein and his accomplices to support their global trafficking enterprise under the pretext of non-criminal business activities”. The suit also said the bank failed to file suspicious activity reports.

Attorneys Weigh In on Legal Hurdles

Experienced lawyers who commented on the matter said proving such a case would be challenging. But they also noted potential results which could offer comfort to accusers or disclosure of long-sought information.

Attorney Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor who founded West Coast Trial lawyers, said proof has to show that an bank’s conduct 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 criminal justice and compensation,” Rahmani said. Certain allegations might be not directly related from a juridical perspective.

“It all comes down to evidence,” Rahmani said. A attorney would need to prove causation, which would mean “if not for the bank’s actions, the injury wouldn’t have happened”. In this instance, that would translate to “absent the institution’s involvement, the survivor maybe wouldn’t have been exploited”, the lawyer clarified.

A lawyer would also have to go beyond a basic causation test. “Is not just ‘but for’ causation. It also has to be a substantial factor: that is the standard. So any improper behavior there was, if there was any misconduct … the bank’s actions has to have been a key contributor in leading to the plaintiff harm.

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

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

“It’s a PR nightmare,” Rahmani noted. If the banks try to get these suits thrown out and fail, the attorney anticipates a quick resolution. “No one wants to go litigate any of the Epstein-related cases.”

Eric Faddis, a trial attorney and principal of the Colorado law firm his firm and former prosecutor, 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 claimed misconduct or illegal acts”, and in some way offered support to Epstein.

“However, even in that case, I think it’s going to be difficult to effectively connect the banks into some kind of trafficking operation. The institutions would likely 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 client who’s an unsavory person”.

“However, it is unlawful for a financial firm to in any way be involved in the criminal activity of a customer, but these aspects are very different, and so I think that it’s going to be a tough lawsuit against the institutions.”

Possible Advantages for Victims

That said, key elements of the legal proceedings could help 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 legal action, there’s a discovery process, and that legal procedure often requires release of information that was not formerly available.”

Attorney Brad Edwards said in a comment 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 Jeffrey Epstein – as well as for potential targets who will suffer from comparable criminal networks – if our banks are not made responsible for the crucial part each performs, either in supplying the necessary infrastructure for the illegal operation or recognizing the monetary aspect of these offenses and stopping it.

He added: “We have a far better chance of effecting meaningful change than Congress, because we know the facts and background of the matter and are not motivated by politics but rather by a sincere intention to create substantial impact and to protect the survivors, who have already endured immense pain.

“Our handling of these issues without any political agenda and thus cannot be deterred by obstructions, shielding influential figures, or the other shameful political maneuvering you and the rest of the world have had to watch unfold recently.”

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 legal resolution for victims.”

Bank Responses

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

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