This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . The next check for changes will be
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/jun/26/jes-staley-loses-legal-case-over-city-ban-for-misleading-watchdog-over-epstein-links
The article has changed 6 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 4 | Version 5 |
|---|---|
| Jes Staley loses appeal against City ban for misleading watchdog over Epstein links | Jes Staley loses appeal against City ban for misleading watchdog over Epstein links |
| (about 7 hours later) | |
| Former Barclays CEO remains barred from holding senior financial roles after his ‘serious failure of judgment’ | Former Barclays CEO remains barred from holding senior financial roles after his ‘serious failure of judgment’ |
| High flyer to pariah: the saga of Epstein-linked banker Jes Staley | |
| The former Barclays chief executive Jes Staley has lost a legal challenge against the UK financial regulator, leaving him banned from the City for life for misleading the watchdog over his relationship with the sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. | The former Barclays chief executive Jes Staley has lost a legal challenge against the UK financial regulator, leaving him banned from the City for life for misleading the watchdog over his relationship with the sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. |
| The ruling, handed down by the upper tribunal judge Tim Herrington, said: “We agree with the [Financial Conduct] Authority (FCA) that Mr Staley’s breaches of the authority’s rules represented a serious failure of judgment by Mr Staley. | The ruling, handed down by the upper tribunal judge Tim Herrington, said: “We agree with the [Financial Conduct] Authority (FCA) that Mr Staley’s breaches of the authority’s rules represented a serious failure of judgment by Mr Staley. |
| “Bearing in mind the importance of Barclays as a financial institution, this was conduct that could have resulted in confidence in the financial system being adversely affected.” | “Bearing in mind the importance of Barclays as a financial institution, this was conduct that could have resulted in confidence in the financial system being adversely affected.” |
| The case centred on a letter that Barclays sent to the FCA in 2019 that stated Staley “did not have a close relationship” with Epstein and his last contact with the financier was “well before” he joined Barclays four years earlier in 2015. | The case centred on a letter that Barclays sent to the FCA in 2019 that stated Staley “did not have a close relationship” with Epstein and his last contact with the financier was “well before” he joined Barclays four years earlier in 2015. |
| However, a subsequent investigation by the FCA – triggered by a cache of 1,200 emails from Staley’s former employer JP Morgan – concluded that the pair were “indeed close” and had a relationship that “went beyond one that was professional in nature”. | However, a subsequent investigation by the FCA – triggered by a cache of 1,200 emails from Staley’s former employer JP Morgan – concluded that the pair were “indeed close” and had a relationship that “went beyond one that was professional in nature”. |
| Staley, 68, appealed against the decision at the upper tribunal, leading to a two-week hearing in March during which high-profile figures, including the Barclays chair, Nigel Higgins, and the Bank of England governor, Andrew Bailey, appeared in the witness box. The American banker himself faced almost four days of questioning. | Staley, 68, appealed against the decision at the upper tribunal, leading to a two-week hearing in March during which high-profile figures, including the Barclays chair, Nigel Higgins, and the Bank of England governor, Andrew Bailey, appeared in the witness box. The American banker himself faced almost four days of questioning. |
| The tribunal raised concerns about Staley’s evidence in its judgment, saying that the former Barclays chief executive “could be inconsistent in his answers when he felt that it would suit his case”. | The tribunal raised concerns about Staley’s evidence in its judgment, saying that the former Barclays chief executive “could be inconsistent in his answers when he felt that it would suit his case”. |
| The ruling said: “Although we do not consider that Mr Staley sought deliberately to mislead the tribunal we have found that some of his evidence lacked credibility. There were occasions on which he did not do his best to assist the tribunal in his answers.” | The ruling said: “Although we do not consider that Mr Staley sought deliberately to mislead the tribunal we have found that some of his evidence lacked credibility. There were occasions on which he did not do his best to assist the tribunal in his answers.” |
| The tribunal added that Staley had “shown no remorse for his conduct which has led to the authority’s investigation”. | The tribunal added that Staley had “shown no remorse for his conduct which has led to the authority’s investigation”. |
| Staley resigned from Barclays in 2021 over preliminary findings from the FCA’s investigation. He was eventually banned from the City, and originally issued with a £1.8m fine when the regulator gave its final decision in 2023. He also lost out on £18m worth of pay and bonuses from Barclays as a result of the ruling. | Staley resigned from Barclays in 2021 over preliminary findings from the FCA’s investigation. He was eventually banned from the City, and originally issued with a £1.8m fine when the regulator gave its final decision in 2023. He also lost out on £18m worth of pay and bonuses from Barclays as a result of the ruling. |
| The upper tribunal reduced Staley’s £1.8m fine to £1.1m in light of his lost pay from Barclays, but upheld the FCA’s ban on Staley holding a senior management role in the financial services industry. | The upper tribunal reduced Staley’s £1.8m fine to £1.1m in light of his lost pay from Barclays, but upheld the FCA’s ban on Staley holding a senior management role in the financial services industry. |
| Sign up to Business Today | Sign up to Business Today |
| Get set for the working day – we'll point you to all the business news and analysis you need every morning | Get set for the working day – we'll point you to all the business news and analysis you need every morning |
| after newsletter promotion | after newsletter promotion |
| The City watchdog’s joint director of enforcement, Therese Chambers, 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 City watchdog’s joint director of enforcement, Therese Chambers, 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 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.” |
| Staley has 14 days to appeal against the decision to the supreme court. | Staley has 14 days to appeal against the decision to the supreme court. |
| Staley said in a statement: “I am disappointed by the outcome and the time it took for this process to play out – that was entirely beyond my control. As the tribunal accepted, I was never dishonest – it took years of arguing with the authority and until November 2024 to establish that fact and it took more time for the financial penalty to be reduced by 40%. | Staley said in a statement: “I am disappointed by the outcome and the time it took for this process to play out – that was entirely beyond my control. As the tribunal accepted, I was never dishonest – it took years of arguing with the authority and until November 2024 to establish that fact and it took more time for the financial penalty to be reduced by 40%. |
| “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’.” | “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’.” |