UT (Tax & Chancery) UT-2023-000064 - [2025] UKUT 00203 (TCC)

At 2.43 pm on 5 October 2019 Mr Hoyt emailed Mr Higgins. He said:

“Here is a new draft letter along the lines of what we discussed last night. I shortened it from the earlier version, although it could be shortened even further if you wish. Once you have a draft that you are satisfied with, I recommend showing it to Jes to ensure that he thinks it fairly describes what he has told us. He was comfortable with the earlier draft, so this should be straightforward.”

That draft contained, for the first time, the statement that Mr Staley did not have a close relationship with Mr Epstein. It read:

“Dear Jonathan,

I am writing to close the loop on your request for assurance that we have informed ourselves and are comfortable in regard to any association of Jes Staley or Barclays with Jeffrey Epstein. I can now report that Crawford Gillies, Bob Hoyt and I have had conversations with Jes where he has described his interactions with Mr. Epstein. Jes has confirmed to us that he did not have a close relationship with Mr. Epstein, and he is resolute that at no time did he see anything that would have suggested or revealed any aspect of the conduct that has been the subject of recent allegations. Jes’ last contact with Mr. Epstein was before he joined Barclays in 2015.

Separately, Barclays’ Financial Crime team has conducted a thorough review of our records, which did not reveal any client or customer relationship with Mr. Epstein.

In sum, neither our discussions with Jes nor our review of the bank’s records have revealed any cause to suspect that Barclays or Jes have played any role in the activities of Mr. Epstein that are under investigation.

I trust this addresses your questions.”

It is to be noted that the “no close relationship” language replaced the statement in the previous draft about Mr Staley only having had “occasional meetings” with Mr Epstein since the latter’s release from prison. Mr Hoyt explained in evidence that he regarded this as not a substantial change. In answer to a question from the Tribunal, Mr Hoyt agreed that the easiest way of including the “no close relationship” language was to substitute it for the “occasional meetings” language because the two phrases were synonymous.

It is clear from Mr Hoyt’s evidence on this point that he was influenced by the language in the Bowdoin College Talking Points to the effect that there was no professionally close relationship between the two men after Mr Epstein’s release from prison and limited contact after that time. As the Authority submitted, in those circumstances it was not surprising that Mr Hoyt and Mr Higgins concluded that it was fair to say that Mr Staley “did not have a close relationship” with Mr Epstein. As the Authority submitted, the impression they had, as the Bowdoin College Talking Points records, was that Mr Staley’s relationship with Mr Epstein had been a strictly professional one, rooted in Mr Staley’s role as Mr Epstein’s banker and Mr Epstein’s propensity to introduce clients to Mr Staley in that role, which had started to taper off after 2009 – a decade before the Letter being written.

At 4.23 pm, Mr Higgins responded, suggesting the changes which we have already discussed at [354] to [359] above. He also suggested that they say “a long time before” in reference to Mr Staley’s last contact with Mr Epstein.

At 7.40 pm, Mr Hoyt then sent a revised draft. He explained to Mr Higgins that he had gone with the phrase “well before” instead of a “long time before”, because he believed “the last meeting was in 2015”. As previously discussed, He also indicated he was leaving the last paragraph in even though it “may not be what Jonathan is looking for”.

It is to be noted that even though Mr Hoyt said that he had introduced the “well before” language because he believed the last meeting between the two men had taken place in 2015, the draft referred to there having been no “contact” between the two men since that time. As we have discussed above, “contact” is wider than “meeting”, but, for the reasons we explain below, it appears that Mr Hoyt focused his attention on the last time the two men met rather than the last time they had contact.

In his evidence, Mr Hoyt explained that he did not have the impression from Mr Staley that there had been any contact between Mr Staley and Mr Epstein around the time that Mr Staley was appointed as chief executive of Barclays. It appears that Mr Higgins did in fact discuss with Mr Staley when “contact” diminished and when it stopped. Mr Higgins said in interview that he was told that there was “nothing” after Mr Staley joined Barclays in 2015 and he was given the impression that the last “contact” was earlier in the same year and was not stopped just because Mr Staley was joining Barclays.

Mr Higgins’s understanding – that there been no contact of any kind “well before” Mr Staley joined Barclays – was put to Mr Staley in the light of Mr Staley’s evidence that the decision to cease contact was linked to Mr Staley assuming the role at Barclays. Mr Staley declined to say that Mr Higgins had the wrong impression; contending that he did not know what definition of “contact” Mr Higgins was using in his evidence.

Mr Staley’s evidence was that the language of “well before” was intended to be by reference to the date of the island visit on 12 April 2015, because, on his case, “contact” meant in person meetings. In cross-examination he asserted that Mr Hoyt had expressly advised him that “contact” meant an in person meeting.

There is no evidence to support Mr Staley’s assertion that he was advised by Mr Hoyt that the reference to “contact” in the draft meant physical meeting. Mr Hoyt’s evidence, which was not challenged, was that Mr Staley had explained to him that he had last seen Mr Epstein in April 2015, and he did not think that they had discussed whether there had been any email or telephone communication. That, Mr Hoyt explained, was because he believed the question of concern from the Authority was whether by virtue of Mr Staley’s relationship with Mr Epstein, he would have been aware of or participated in Mr Epstein’s illegal activities. Mr Hoyt said that as a result, face-to-face contact was more in his mind at that time than other forms of contact. That, in our view, explains the emphasis that Mr Hoyt put on “meeting” in his email of 7.40 p.m. referred to at [414] above.

However, it would appear from their evidence that Mr Staley had not informed either Mr Higgins or Mr Hoyt of the contact between Mr Staley and Mr Epstein that had taken place after April 2015, despite Mr Higgins having asked Mr Staley when contact had stopped. Therefore, it did not occur to them that there had been any contact after the meeting in April 2015 which Mr Staley did disclose to them.

At 12.33 am on 6 October that night, Mr Higgins responded to Mr Hoyt’s email referred to at [414] approving the revised draft. He said: “Ok. Will you share with Jes and I’ll sign next week?”

On 6 October 2019, Mr Hoyt sent Mr Staley (copying Mr Higgins) the final draft of the Letter for his review. His covering email said:

“Jes,

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. Based on a discussion between Nigel and Jonathan on Friday, we think this will meet the FCA’s needs.

If you have any questions or suggested edits please let us know. Jonathan will be expecting the letter this week.”

As the Authority submitted, Mr Hoyt was making it clear to Mr Staley that he needed to come to his own view as to whether the language and the letter was fair and accurate.