News | SteelEye

James "Jes" Staley Ban and Fine Upheld by Upper Tribunal - £1m - FCA - Jun-25

Written by SteelEye | Jun 26, 2025 2:45:49 PM

 

QUICK FACTS

  • Fine Amount: £1,107,306.92

  • Date: 12 November 2024

  • Primary Violations:

    • Acting without integrity (ICR 1)

    • Failing to be open and cooperative with the regulator (ICR 3)

    • Failing to disclose information appropriately (SMCR 4) by recklessly approving a letter to the FCA containing inaccurate statements. 

Overview

The UK's Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) has upheld a decision by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) to prohibit former Barclays CEO, James "Jes" Staley, from holding senior management or significant influence roles in the financial services industry. The Tribunal also imposed a financial penalty, which it reduced from the FCA's originally proposed £1.8 million to £1,107,306.92.

The case centred on Mr. Staley's approval of a letter sent by Barclays to the FCA on 8 October 2019. The Tribunal found that Mr. Staley acted recklessly by approving the letter, which contained misleading statements regarding the nature of his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein and the timing of their last contact. 

This conduct was judged to be a breach of several key rules for senior managers, including the requirement to act with integrity (ICR 1), to be open and cooperative with regulators (ICR 3), and to disclose appropriately any information of which the regulator would reasonably expect notice (SMCR 4). 

Details of the CASE

THe FCA's Enquiry

Following the arrest of Jeffrey Epstein in July 2019, press articles highlighted his connections to prominent figures, including Mr. Staley. This prompted the FCA to contact Barclays in August 2019, requesting "assurance that we have informed ourselves and are comfortable in regard to any association of Jes Staley or Barclays with Jeffrey Epstein.

 

The Misleading Letter

On 8 October 2019, the Chairman of Barclays sent the formal response letter to the FCA, which Mr. Staley had reviewed and approved.  The letter contained two key assertions that the Tribunal later found to be inaccurate:

  • That Mr. Staley "did not have a close relationship with Mr. Epstein".
  • That Mr. Staley's "last contact with Mr. Epstein was well before he joined Barclays in 2015". 

 

The tribunal's findings

On the "Close Relationship": The Tribunal found the statement that the relationship was not close to be inaccurate, concluding the evidence for a close relationship was "overwhelming". The relationship, which began professionally while Mr. Epstein was a client of J.P. Morgan's private bank where Mr. Staley was an executive, evolved into one that was also personally close.  Evidence included:

  • Over 1,200 emails exchanged between the two from 2008 to 2012.
  • Mr. Staley confided in Mr. Epstein on sensitive career matters, including his potential appointment as Barclays CEO in 2015.
  • Emails where Mr. Staley referred to Mr. Epstein as "one of our deepest friends" and his "most cherished friend". In his testimony, Mr. Staley admitted he "misspoke" when he said he did not have a close relationship with Mr. Epstein. 

On the "Last Contact": The Tribunal also found this statement to be inaccurate. While the last face-to-face meeting was in April 2015, direct contact via email and phone continued until at least 29 October 2015, shortly before Mr. Staley's role at Barclays commenced in December 2015. The Tribunal determined this could not be described as "well before" he joined the bank. Furthermore, indirect contact via Mr. Staley's daughter continued until at least February 2017. 

On Recklessness: The Tribunal concluded that Mr. Staley acted recklessly. It found that he knew the statements in the letter were inaccurate at the time he approved them. As an experienced senior manager, it would have been obvious to him that the regulator would rely on these material statements and that there was a risk it would be misled. Despite being expressly asked by his colleagues to confirm the letter's language was "fair and accurate," he approved it. 

Penalties

The Tribunal upheld the FCA's decision to prohibit Mr. Staley from performing senior management or significant influence functions. It agreed with the FCA's assessment that Mr. Staley is not a "fit and proper person" for such roles, a decision intended as a protective measure for the public and the integrity of the UK financial system.

Key quotes

  • 1.  On the definition of lacking integrity: "One example of a lack of integrity not involving dishonesty is recklessness as to the truth of statements made to others who will or may rely on them or wilful disregard of information contradicting the truth of such statements."
  • 2.  On the importance of truthful communication with regulators: "As the Authority correctly observed, for the proper functioning of the regime of oversight of the financial services sector and the market, the Authority relies upon, and must be able to rely upon, the veracity and completeness of the representations made to it and openness in disclosing matters of which it would reasonably expect to be given notice."
  • On the direct responsibility of a senior manager: The covering email from Barclays' General Counsel sending Mr. Staley the final draft letter for review stated, "Please have a look at the attached draft letter. It is only slightly revised from the draft I showed you last week, but we want to be sure you feel that the language is fair and accurate."

Sources: