Upper Tribunal Tax and Chancery Chamber

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

Fecha: 03-Abr-2025

Mr Staley’s evidence

Mr Staley’s evidence

67.

Mr Staley filed two witness statements on which he was cross-examined at length by Ms Mulcahy. In addition he provided a character statement from Ms Idara Otu which was not challenged.

68.

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.

69.

Some of the difficulties with Mr Staley’s evidence derived from the fact that significant parts of Mr Staley’s two witness statements contained evidence that was not reliable. This may have derived from the fact that he did not prepare much of it himself and did not adequately review what was being said on his behalf but, in her submissions Ms Mulcahy identified some very significant points where there was a conflict between what Mr Staley had said in his witness statements and what he said in cross-examination. For example:

(1)

In his first witness statement Mr Staley stated “my relationship with [Mr Epstein] was never a personal one nor one that could be described as “close” but he admitted in cross-examination that he “misspoke” when he said he did not have a close relationship with Mr Epstein. Although generally in his witness statement he said that he had a “professional, fairly close relationship” at times during cross-examination, he described their relationship as being “very close” and at one point that Mr Epstein was his “friend”.

(2)

In his first witness statement, Mr Staley claimed that no one ever told him about the issues which arose at JPM concerning Mr Epstein’s cash withdrawals. There is clear evidence to the contrary and Mr Staley accepted in cross-examination that this part of his witness statement was wrong.

(3)

In his first witness statement, Mr Staley had stated that he was “shocked and surprised” by Mr Epstein’s arrest on 6 July 2019 and that it had been his belief that Mr Epstein’s conviction in 2008 “had been an isolated transgression of an entirely different nature to that which was now being reported”. This was not supported by the documentary evidence and in his deposition in the US Proceedings (the “Deposition”), Mr Staley had said that he “wasn’t that surprised” because he had known that federal investigations were continuing; and in cross-examination in these proceedings, he admitted that he knew before 2015 (indeed by 2010) that Mr Epstein had lied to him in 2006 about the ages of the complainants. He accepted in cross-examination that the relevant statement in his witness statement was in hindsight not right.

70.

Mr Staley could be inconsistent in his answers when he felt that it would suit his case. As Ms Mulcahy submitted, an example of this was how Mr Staley understood the meaning of “contact”. He did accept over the course of his oral evidence that contact could include, inter alia, emails and text messages but because his case was that in the Letter the term “contact” was used as a synonym for physical meeting he asserted in his oral evidence that he believed “contact” means only “meeting”.

71.

It was also a feature of Mr Staley’s evidence that he frequently claimed he could not recall matters. Of course, due regard has to be given to the fact that all the witnesses in this case had difficulty in remembering the detail of events following the passage of time, it was often the case that his memory was clear on matters which were helpful to his case, but not so in relation to matters that called for an explanation, particularly in regard to communications with Mr Epstein which on the face appeared to relate only to personal matters unconnected with any business purpose. As Ms Mulcahy submitted, there were occasions where it was only when Mr Staley was presented with his previous evidence or clearly irrefutable evidence that he tended to accept difficult points rather than rely on his non-recollection.

72.

Accordingly, we have found it necessary to treat some of Mr Staley’s evidence with caution, only seeking to rely on it where it is reasonable to draw inferences from what he said when considered alongside other evidence.