[ad_1]
Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free
Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.
Jes Staley has failed to overturn a decision by the Financial Conduct Authority that he “recklessly” misled the UK regulator about his ties to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, in a major setback for the former chief executive of Barclays.
In a judgment handed down on Thursday by the Upper Tribunal, Judge Timothy Herrington said Staley’s behaviour represented a “serious failure of judgment” and that he had “acted without integrity” by approving a misleading letter from the bank to its regulator that claimed its chief executive and the convicted paedophile did not have a close relationship.
Staley, who stepped down as Barclays chief in 2021, had “shown no remorse for his conduct”, according to the judgment.
The judge, however, ordered that the £1.8mn fine imposed on Staley by the regulator be reduced by almost 40 per cent to £1.1mn to reflect the fact that Barclays had not allowed him to receive deferred shares that he was entitled to.
The former Barclays boss had mounted a legal challenge against the ban and fine imposed on him by the FCA in 2023, with a high-profile trial taking place in March. Witnesses included the governor of the Bank of England, Andrew Bailey — who headed the FCA at the time — and Barclays’ chair Nigel Higgins.
During the hearing, Staley addressed numerous intimate emails he sent to Epstein. These included the now-infamous reference to Disney princesses such as Snow White, as well as the sex offender’s contacts with Staley’s daughter Alexa, to whom the former Barclays boss forwarded correspondence referring to “Uncle Jeffrey”.
Thursday’s judgment found that Staley’s “conduct was such that it could have resulted in confidence in the financial system being adversely affected”.
At the heart of the dispute were two representations made by Barclays in a letter sent to regulators in October 2019 — two months after Epstein died in a New York jail cell awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges — that stated Staley “did not have a close relationship” with the financier and that the pair last communicated “well before he joined Barclays in 2015”.
The FCA opened an investigation into Staley two months later, after his former employer JPMorgan Chase told the regulator it had a trove of documents regarding his relationship with Epstein, which the FCA compelled the US bank to hand over.
“We have noted Mr Staley’s achievements as chief executive of Barclays, but in our view these do not diminish the seriousness of the misconduct,” the judgment read. “The loss of his long-standing career is an inevitable consequence of that conduct.”
Staley said in a statement on Thursday that he was “disappointed by the outcome and the time it took for this process to play out”.
The 68-year-old American added: “I have worked tirelessly for my prior employers for the entirety of my career; I am proud of the support I gave to many individuals during that career and the strategy I developed to help Barclays when it faced immense challenges. The Tribunal recognised what they described as ‘my long and distinguished career’.”
Barclays declined to comment.
Therese Chambers, joint executive director of enforcement and market oversight at the FCA, said Staley had taken “a calculated risk” and “hoped that the truth would never come to light and that he would get away with it”. She added: “Such a serious lack of integrity flies in the face of the requirements we place on those at the top.”
The judge highlighted several inconsistencies between Staley’s witness statement, which “contained evidence that was not reliable”, and his testimony in court.
These included claims by Staley that his relationship with Epstein was not a personal one, while conceding during cross-examination that they had been “very close” and once described him as a “friend.”
Recommended
The judgment also highlighted Staley’s evidence when he admitted he knew as early as 2010 that the disgraced financier had lied to him in 2006 about the ages of Epstein’s accusers.
“We, therefore, cannot accept Mr Staley’s evidence in his witness statement that when Mr Epstein had been arrested he was shocked and surprised,” the judge wrote. “What he told [the FCA] in interview, which was that he had no idea of the conduct being alleged, was also untrue.”
Staley’s attempt to overturn the FCA’s ban was seen as a long shot, which prompted those who had known and worked with him to question why he had decided to publicly revisit his relationship with the paedophile and drag a cast of the City’s most important figures back into Epstein’s orbit.
References in court filings to Prince Andrew and Lord Peter Mandelson, now the British ambassador to the US, who were both contacts of Epstein, guaranteed that Staley’s challenge against the FCA would attract headlines.
Staley said he had endured public humiliation after it was revealed in court that he had sexual intercourse with one of Epstein’s employees at an apartment in New York belonging to the deceased financier’s brother, an admission that he said also put his marriage at risk.
Staley has two weeks to appeal the tribunal’s judgment. He may now be reeling but insiders report that Barclays — over whom the scandal has cast a long shadow — is hoping that the decision draws a line under the episode.
[ad_2]
Source link
