UT (Tax & Chancery) UT-2023-000064 - [2025] UKUT 00203 (TCC)
Fecha: 03-Abr-2025
INTRODUCTION
INTRODUCTION
On 30 May 2023 the Financial Conduct Authority (“the Authority”) through its Regulatory Decisions Committee issued a decision notice (the “Decision Notice”) to the Applicant (“Mr Staley”).
In the Decision Notice the Authority decided that Mr Staley was in breach of three provisions of the Authority’s Handbook, namely ICR 1 (the requirement to act with integrity), ICR 3 (the requirement to be open and cooperative with regulators) and SMCR 4 (the requirement to disclose appropriately any information of which the Authority would reasonably expect notice). The Authority decided to impose upon Mr Staley a penalty of £1,812,800 and to make an order prohibiting him from performing any senior management or significant influence function in relation to any regulated activity carried on by an authorised person, exempt person or exempt professional firm pursuant to s 56 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (“FSMA”).
In brief, the Authority considered that Mr Staley had recklessly and with a lack of integrity approved a letter being sent to the Authority on 8 October 2019 (the “Letter”) that contained misleading statements, (i) as to the nature of his relationship with Mr Jeffrey Epstein (“Mr Epstein”) and (ii) as to the time that they were last in contact. The Letter said that the relationship was not close and that the last contact was well before the Applicant joined Barclays Bank plc (“Barclays”) as its Chief Executive Officer in December 2015. The Authority contends that both these statements were inaccurate and misleading.
On 26 June 2023 Mr Staley referred the Authority’s decision to the Tribunal. He denies that the Letter contained misleading statements.
- 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