Lawsuits Against Banks with Epstein Ties Could Reveal Fresh Insights on Billionaire’s Wrongdoings

Over many years, victims of the late financier Jeffrey Epstein have sought accountability. At one point, it appeared like they would get it.

Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s ex-girlfriend, was found guilty of sex trafficking four years ago for her role in the late financier’s exploitation of underage females – and given to two decades behind bars.

At the same time, banks that had done business with Epstein, although not admitting wrongdoing, paid substantial sums in settlements to victims. Former President Trump even made disclosing the documents related to the Epstein probe part of his campaign platform, and doubled down on his promise to do so early this year.

Ultimately, the administration’s Department of Justice did not release these files, and his government has become embroiled in reports about social ties between him and Epstein. Congressional promises to release files have stalled, due to political jockeying and justice department foot-dragging.

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

Legal Actions Target Leading Financial Institutions

These lawsuits, submitted by an unnamed accuser against Bank of America and the BNY Mellon, claim that these banking giants unlawfully facilitated Epstein’s trafficking ring. The suits are led by Sigrid S McCawley, of a prominent law firm, and lawyer Brad Edwards of his legal practice, who have long represented Epstein victims.

“Epstein committed these crimes by means of not only his own vast fortune and power, but through access to funding and financial support from both private parties and institutions, including BNY,” one lawsuit claims. “Shockingly, the institution had a abundance of knowledge regarding Epstein’s sex trafficking operation but chose profit over safeguarding those harmed.”

The Bank of America suit echoes these allegations, asserting the institution “knowingly provided the monetary resources and the veneer of institutional legitimacy for Epstein and his accomplices to support their global trafficking enterprise under the guise of non-criminal business activities”. The legal action also said the bank neglected to file mandatory financial alerts.

Legal Experts Weigh In on Legal Hurdles

Experienced lawyers who commented on the situation said establishing liability would be difficult. But they also identified possible outcomes which could offer comfort to accusers or disclosure of long-sought information.

Neama Rahmani, a ex-government lawyer who established a legal firm, said evidence has to show that an bank’s conduct 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 legal redress and financial recovery,” Rahmani said. Some claims might be not directly related from a legal standpoint.

“The case hinges on proof,” 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 case, that would translate to “but for the bank’s conduct, the victim maybe wouldn’t have been exploited”, Rahmani clarified.

An attorney 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 wrongdoing … the defendant’s misconduct has to have been a key contributor in causing the plaintiff harm.

“By engaging in a business relationship with Epstein, is that a substantial factor? It’s uncertain.”

Liability aside, suits like this could put institutions on notice 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 cases thrown out and fail, Rahmani anticipates a quick resolution. “No party desires to pursue any of the Epstein-related cases.”

Eric Faddis, a trial attorney and founder of the Colorado law firm Varner Faddis and ex-government lawyer, said corporations can be liable. In this situation, “if the institutions bear fault is going to hinge, in part, on their level of awareness, whether they had any knowledge of alleged abuse or illegal acts”, 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 trafficking operation. The banks would likely not be privy to the details of claims,” the lawyer said. While the financier’s prior legal case was known, “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 complicit in the illegal actions of a customer, but those two issues are very different, and so I think that it’s going to be a tough lawsuit against the institutions.”

Possible Advantages for Survivors

Nevertheless, important aspects of the legal proceedings could assist those affected by Epstein.

“These cases may uncover additional details about the continuing Epstein story,” the attorney said. “Despite the fact that there have been sort of walls put up at every turn for folks seeking this data, when there’s a lawsuit, there’s a discovery process, and that legal procedure often mandates release of materials that was not formerly available.”

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 victims of Jeffrey Epstein – as well as for future would-be victims who will suffer from comparable criminal networks – if our financial institutions are not made responsible for the essential role each performs, either in supplying the necessary infrastructure for the criminal enterprise or identifying the monetary aspect of these offenses 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 details and history of the case and are not motivated by partisan interests but rather by a genuine desire to create substantial impact and to safeguard the survivors, who have already suffered tremendously.

“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 observe recently.”

Attorney Sigrid McCawley said in a statement: “As Congress works toward unraveling how Jeffrey Epstein was able to conduct his criminal sex-trafficking enterprise for decades without detection, we are taking another important step 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 intend to firmly protect our interests in this case.”