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

The Scope of the Authority’s Initial Enquiry in August 2019

Was the enquiry made by the Authority to Barclays limited to establishing whether Mr Staley was involved in or witnessed the conduct which formed the basis for the allegations against Mr Epstein for which he was arrested in 2019 or was it broader and went to Mr Staley’s fitness and propriety and the association of the two men more generally?

Materiality of the statements in the Letter

Were the statements in the Letter that (i) Mr Staley did not have a close relationship with Mr Epstein (“Statement 1”) and (ii) that Mr Staley’s last contact with Mr Epstein was well before he joined Barclays in 2015 (“Statement 2”) (Footnote: ¹)material statements of fact so far as the Authority was concerned, i.e. was it self-evident that it was important that those statements should be accurate because the Authority would be likely to rely on them?

Accuracy of the Statements

Were the Statements inaccurate and misleading when considered against the evidence as to the relationship between the two men and the recency of their last contact?

Recklessness of approving the Statements

Was Mr Staley aware of a risk that the Authority might be misled by the Statements, it having been conceded that if Mr Staley is proven to have been aware of the risk, it was unreasonable for him to take it?

Whether the approval of the Statements amounted to a breach of the Authority’s Rules

Did Mr Staley’s conduct in approving the Letter demonstrate a lack of integrity and contravention of the provisions of ICR 1 and/or ICR 3 and/or SMCR 4?

In that regard, we do not accept Mr Smith’s submission to the effect that the allegations of breach of these rules stand or fall together. In our view, even if we were to find that Mr Staley did not fail to act with integrity in approving the Statements, for example because we find that he was not aware of the risk that the Authority would be misled by the Statements, then it would still be open to us to find that he failed to be open and cooperative with the Authority or failed to disclose appropriately any information of which the Authority would reasonably expect notice. That is because a breach of either of ICR 3 or SMCR 4 could be founded on the basis of a lesser degree of culpability, such as a failure to take reasonable care in approving the Statements.

Sanctions

Are the sanctions imposed by the Decision Notice appropriate and proportionate and/or premised on a correct calculation?