
'Overwhelming' evidence former Barclays boss Jes Staley was 'close' to notorious paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, tribunal rules
There is 'overwhelming' evidence that former Barclays chief executive Jes Staley had a close relationship with convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, a tribunal has ruled.
Mr Staley was fined £1.8 million and banned from holding senior roles in the financial sector by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) in 2023, after it found that he misled the regulator over the nature of his relationship with the financier.
The American challenged the ban and the fine at the Upper Tribunal in London, with his lawyers saying that he 'never attempted to conceal his relationship with Mr Epstein', which the banker described as 'professionally fairly close' but not 'personally close'.
The FCA opposed the challenge, telling a hearing held in March and April that Mr Staley and Epstein had a 'friendship'.
In a unanimous decision on Thursday, Upper Tribunal judge Tim Herrington and tribunal members Martin Fraenkel and Cathy Farquharson dismissed Mr Staley's challenge, but reduced the fine to £1,107,306.92.
They said: 'We regard the distinction between a close relationship which arises out of personal friendship and one that arises out of a professional relationship as being fallacious.'
They continued: 'In our view, the evidence that Mr Staley had a close relationship with Mr Epstein is overwhelming and there was no evidence before us to suggest that many others had a relationship which was similar in nature to that we have found existed between Mr Staley and Mr Epstein.'
They added: 'In our view, there is no basis on which Mr Staley could have drawn the conclusion that inclusion of the 'no close relationship language' was accurate.'
Mr Staley acted as a private banker to Epstein during his time at JP Morgan, where he worked for more than 30 years before joining Barclays in 2015.
In 2019, Epstein was arrested again after being jailed for child sex offences in 2008. He died in prison later that year while awaiting trial for sex trafficking offences.
Leigh-Ann Mulcahy KC, for the FCA, told the tribunal in written submissions that the watchdog contacted Barclays in August 2019 for an 'assurance' that the bank's board had 'informed itself of and was comfortable regarding any association of Mr Staley or Barclays with Mr Epstein'.
In a letter written to the FCA, approved by Mr Staley, Barclays chairman Nigel Higgins said 'Jes has confirmed to us that he did not have a close relationship with Mr Epstein' and that 'Jes' last contact with Mr Epstein was well before he joined Barclays' in 2015.
The authority found that the letter was misleading and that Mr Staley acted 'recklessly and without integrity' by allowing it to be sent, with Ms Mulcahy telling the hearing that the pair maintained contact through Mr Staley's daughter up to at least February 2017.
The barrister said emails showed Mr Staley describing Epstein as like 'family' and one of his 'deepest' and 'most cherished' friends, and that between March 2016 and February 2017, Mr Staley's daughter, Alexa Staley, was used as an intermediary.
In a witness statement, Mr Staley told the tribunal that he would describe his relationship with Epstein as 'professionally fairly close' and that his reputation had been 'irretrievably damaged'.
He said: 'It was a professional relationship which was predicated upon business. We were not personal friends, nor were we personally close.'
Giving evidence in person at the tribunal, Mr Staley said he 'was not aware' of Epstein's abuse.
He said: 'I think it was important to emphasise that it was a professional relationship because I think somebody with a very close personal relationship more than likely would have been aware.'
In written submissions, Robert Smith KC, for Mr Staley, said that it would be 'entirely illogical' to conclude that Mr Staley would have approved the letter if he believed it was inaccurate or would mislead the regulator.
But in their 93-page ruling, Judge Herrington, Mr Fraenkel and Ms Farquharson said it was 'not credible that Mr Staley did not think that the letter would mislead' the FCA.
They continued that they 'would have expected Mr Staley to have been particularly careful' in ensuring the letter was accurate, and that his breaches of FCA rules were 'a serious failure of judgment'.
The judges concluded that they saw 'no basis on which we should interfere' with the decision to ban Mr Staley, who they said had 'shown no remorse for his conduct'.
But they reduced Mr Staley's fine to reflect the fact that, after the FCA published its decision in 2023, Barclays prevented him from deferring shares to which he could have been entitled.
Following the ruling, Therese Chambers, joint executive director of enforcement and market oversight at the FCA, said: 'Mr Staley chose to take a calculated risk that we would take his inaccurate account of his relationship with Mr Epstein at face value.
'He hoped that the truth would never come to light and that he would get away with it. Such a serious lack of integrity flies in the face of the requirements we place on those at the top.
'The tribunal's decision shows that we can and will act to protect the financial system by holding those in senior roles to the high standards required of them.'
The FCA added that Mr Staley has 14 days in which to appeal against the ruling.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Sun
41 minutes ago
- The Sun
Kylian Mbappe accuses PSG of ‘moral harassment' as Real Madrid star's £55m lawsuit takes fresh turn
KYLIAN MBAPPE has accused former club PSG of 'moral harassment' as the legal battle took a fresh turn. France and Real Madrid ace Mbappe is already claiming the French champions owe him £55m from his final year before his free transfer move to Spain. 2 2 But in a separate development, Mbappe, 26, is also arguing PSG ownership attempted to strong arm him into signing a new deal rather than letting his contract run down. And it means the damaging dispute between the two sides will play out even further. In the latest twist, Mbappe filed an official complaint with the French courts against PSG last month, with two examining magistrates now appointed to investigate the claims. Mbappe alleges that the incidents took place in the summer of 2023, ahead of his final year at PSG, when he was excluded from the first-team squad and placed in the club's 'loft' of unwanted players. His lawyers allege that the move to isolate Mbappe was PSG attempting to coerce him into signing a new deal, with the claim saying that it added up to 'psychological pressure' and the 'attempted extortion of a signature.' The new move comes with the wages claim also set to be played out in the courts. Mbappe claims PSG owe him his final three months' salary and bonuses from that last season in Paris, with the club insisting he waived the payments as a condition of his release. Meanwhile, Mbappe is ruled out of Madrid's final group game in the Club World Cup against Salzburg tonight as he recovers from the bout of gastroenteritis that saw him briefly hospitalised for tests last week. The France striker has not featured in the tournament so far but will be available for Madrid's last-16 game on Tuesday. Mbappe returned to the gym this week in a bid to get back to full fitness before the next round. Reports in Spain have claimed that he lost between four and five kilograms due to the virus. It is believed that he may have contracted the illness back in Madrid before flying to the US earlier this month.


The Sun
41 minutes ago
- The Sun
Neighbour ‘took £1.5k to hire hitman to kill pal's wife… before he ditched job and spent cash on Benidorm hols'
A NEIGHBOUR scammed a husband by taking £1,500 to pay for a hitman to kill his wife which he splashed on jetting off to Benidorm, a court heard. Paul Lewis, 54, is accused of paying the money to his neighbour to arrange the killing of his estranged wife after the pair split two years earlier. 4 4 Dominique Saunders, 35, allegedly told Lewis that the job was done and said there were photos and GoPro footage of the killing to prove it. But Lewis, a former steelworker from Swansea, was stunned to find his ex, Joanne Atkinson-Lewis, "still breathing" at a nearby beach. Saunders, known locally as "Dippy Dom", was allegedly stringing Lewis along before splashing the cash on a Benidorm holiday. Lewis' barrister, John Hipkin KC, told the court the grandfather was "vulnerable" due to his poor mental health and had been scammed by his neighbour. Mr Hipkin said Saunders had "simply pushed off to Benidorm with the money". Saunders' own barrister John Harrison KC said Saunders never had any intention for Joanne to be harmed. All he did was "make some internet searches and go on holiday to Benidorm", he said. Prosecutor William Hughes KC said cops launched an investigation after Lewis confessed he had "put a hit" on his ex to his son, Kieran. Mr Hughes said: "During a conversation Mr Lewis accepted that he entered into an agreement with Mr Saunders to arrange for his ex-wife to be killed. "Kieran Lewis asked his father: 'Have you put a hit out on Joanne?' "Mr Lewis apparently broke down crying and nodded at his son acknowledging that he had made such an agreement." Lewis' son Kieran called the police on his dad who uncovered the alleged hitman plot in messages between the two men, who lived in the same block of flats in Swansea. Hughes said the messages revealed that: "Mr Lewis entered into an agreement in which he paid Mr Saunders £1,500 which the prosecution say was a fee to arrange for the killing of Joanne Atkinson-Lewis." Hughes added that financial information showed Lewis withdrew £1,500 from his bank in Swansea and on the same day Saunders deposited a sum of £1,300 into his own account. Horror moment tree surgeon bites off EAR of 'bar-room bore' and spits it on the floor in gruesome pub brawl Messages between the two men in the following days showed Lewis repeatedly saying he had given Saunders £1,500 "in good faith" and demanded to "see the Go Pro". One message from Saunders read: "Death becomes her." The jury was told that Lewis later messaged Saunders to say he had "seen Joanne on Aberavon Prom and she was ok." Saunders replied: "Are you 99 per cent sure?" Lewis confirmed: "I am 100 per cent sure." A day later Lewis messaged his neighbour again saying: "I want her out." The two later fell out after Lewis believed he had been scammed from his money. One message from Saunders said: "You mad or what? How have I scammed you? "The bloke got your money to do work, I ain't got a thing so tell me how I scammed you." Lewis replied: "She is still breathing. "Your story keeps changing. You said there were pictures on your phone, then it was on the GoPro. "I've not even seen the pictures, you're a liar." Prosecutor Hughes said: "Those series of messages clearly demonstrate Mr Lewis and Mr Saunders entered into a criminal agreement where Mr Lewis agreed to pay and did pay Mr Saunders £1,500 to facilitate the murder of Joanne Atkinson-Lewis. "A reasonable interpretation is that Mr Saunders led Mr Lewis to believe he had paid a hitman to carry out the act and he had photographs on his phone or on his GoPro device. "However once Paul Lewis saw his ex-wife was still alive and breathing on Aberavon Beach he realised the criminal agreement he made with Dominque Saunders hadn't been carried out." The two men from Swansea both deny conspiracy to commit murder and one cannot be found guilty without the other. Neither chose to give evidence in their defence. The trial before judge Mr Justice Nicklin will continue at Merthyr Tydfil Crown Court. 4 4


Telegraph
42 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Trump wins tax breaks for US with threat of ‘revenge' raid on foreign business
Donald Trump has extracted tax breaks for US companies after threatening to impose a 'revenge' levy on foreign businesses that moved money out of the US. G7 countries are to abandon plans to make US companies pay a minimum level of corporation tax in return for Mr Trump dropping the threat of 'revenge tax'. Scott Bessent, the US Treasury secretary, said that he has asked both houses of the US Congress to remove a Trump's tax proposal, known as Section 899, from the budget bill after an agreement with the other G7 countries. Section 899 is part of Mr Trump's 'big, beautiful' tax and spend bill, and would have enabled the US president to retaliate against countries that harm American interests with 'discriminatory' tax policies by taxing any money taken out of the country. The power threatened to be hugely costly to British businesses. Some of Britain's biggest companies, including AstraZeneca, BAE and Barclays, have significant operations in the US that could be at risk of being targeted. Fears had mounted that the powers could be used on the UK as a way of forcing Sir Keir Starmer to water down or abolish Britain's digital service tax, which applies to US tech giants. On Thursday night, Mr Bessent wrote on X: 'After months of productive dialogue with other countries on the OECD Global Tax Deal, we will announce a joint understanding among G7 countries that defends American interests. 'President Trump paved the way for this historic achievement. On January 20, the President issued two executive orders instructing [the US] Treasury to defend US tax sovereignty, and as a result of President Trump's leadership we now have a great deal for the American people.' Mr Bessent said the G7 had agreed not to impose what is known as OECD Pillar 2 on US companies. That refers to a 15pc minimum corporate tax rate, which was agreed in principle by 140 countries to be imposed on companies with global revenues of more than €750m (£639m). The idea was to stop multinationals shunting profits from one country to another to take advantage of lower tax rates. Economists complained that it would be only a matter of time before the minimum rate was hiked, locking countries into ever-higher taxes, globally enforced. Joe Biden was an enthusiastic backer of a global minimum rate of corporation tax. Mr Bessent said: 'By reversing the Biden administration's unwise commitments, we are now protecting our nation's authority to enact tax policies that serve the interests of American businesses and workers.' Mr Trump had claimed that the tax deal 'not only allows extraterritorial jurisdiction over American income but also limits our nation's ability to enact tax policies that serve the interests of American businesses and workers'.