![UT (Tax & Chancery) UT-2023-000064 - [2025] UKUT 00203 (TCC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_ICfrj4g.png){kind=logo}
UT (Tax & Chancery) UT-2023-000064 - [2025] UKUT 00203 (TCC)
Fecha: 03-Abr-2025
Heading
UT (Tax & Chancery) Case Number: UT-2023-000064
Hearing venue: The Rolls Building, London
Judgment date: 26 June 2025
FINANCIAL SERVICES – whether Chief Executive Officer acted without integrity or failed to be open and cooperative with the Authority in failing to correct inaccurate statements in a letter sent by his employer to the Authority regarding his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein - whether Chief Executive fit and proper to perform senior management or significant influence function - s 56 FSMA- ICR 1 & 3 Individual Conduct Rules - SMCR 4 Senior Manager Conduct Rules
Financial penalty- whether financial penalty correctly calculated - whether appropriate aggravating and mitigating factors applied- s66 FSMA- DEPP Chapter 6
Before
JUDGE TIMOTHY HERRINGTON
(Sitting in Retirement)
MEMBER CATHERINE FARQUHARSON
MEMBER MARTIN FRAENKEL
Between
JAMES EDWARD STALEY
Applicant
-and-
THE FINANCIAL CONDUCT AUTHORITY
Respondent
Representation:
For the Applicant: Robert Smith KC and Nichola Higgins, Counsel, instructed by Arnold & Porter LLP
For the Respondent: Leigh-Ann Mulcahy KC, Eleanor Davison, Lara Hassell-Hart and Henry Reid, Counsel, instructed by the Financial Conduct Authority
DECISION
- Heading
- INTRODUCTION
- BACKGROUND TO THE REFERENCE
- THE AUTHORITY’S CASE AND MR STALEY’S POSITION
- APPLICABLE LAW AND REGULATORY PROVISIONS
- Rules of conduct
- Prohibition
- Fitness and propriety
- Law relating to integrity
- Financial Penalty
- Step 1: Disgorgement
- ISSUES TO BE DETERMINED AND THE ROLE OF THE TRIBUNAL
- Issues to be determined
- Context
- What is not in issue in this reference
- Standard and burden of proof
- EVIDENCE
- Mr Staley’s evidence
- Documentary evidence
- FINDINGS OF FACT
- The accuracy of the Statements in the Letter
- The period after Mr Epstein’s conviction until Mr Staley left JPM at the end of 2012
- Mr Epstein simply responded “family”
- The period after Mr Staley left JPM at the end of 2012 until he joined Barclays in 2015
- Evaluation of the relationship
- The recency of the last contact between Mr Staley and Mr Epstein at the time the Letter was written
- What Mr Staley told Barclays about his relationship with Mr Epstein
- Period prior to Mr Epstein’s arrest in July 2019
- Period following Mr Epstein’s arrest on 6 July 2019
- Bowdoin College Talking Points
- The process of drafting of the Bowdoin College Talking Points
- Final version of the Bowdoin College Talking Points
- Content of the final version of the Bowdoin College Talking Points
- Presentation to Bowdoin College
- Conclusion on Barclays’ knowledge of the relationship
- The scope of the Authority’s enquiry in August 2019
- The origin of the Authority’s enquiry
- What was said on the call of 15 August 2019
- Conclusion on the scope of the Authority’s enquiry
- The preparation of the Letter and Mr Staley’s approval of it
- October 2019: Drafting of the Letter
- Second draft
- Telephone calls with Mr Gillies: 2 and 4 October
- The call between Mr Higgins and Mr Davidson on 4 October
- Further drafts: 5 and 6 October
- The call of 7 October between Mr Hoyt and Mr Staley
- Finalisation of the Letter
- THE AUTHORITY’S INVESTIGATION
- The Scope of the Authority’s Initial Enquiry in 2019
- Materiality of the Statements
- Accuracy of the Statements
- Recklessness of approving the Statements
- Whether Mr Staley knew that the Statements were inaccurate
- Whether Mr Staley was aware that there was a risk that the Statements would mislead the Authority
- Conclusions