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

Ms Wiggins was clear in her evidence that the document was read out at the meeting, which Mr Staley accepted was the case in part in his re-examination. Indeed, he also suggested that a hard copy was handed out to the Trustees at the meeting.

Mr Smith submitted that the Bowdoin College Talking Points cannot be regarded as a comprehensive account of the relationship between Mr Staley and Mr Epstein. He submitted that the Bowdoin College Talking Points were prepared for a limited purpose, which was to assure the Trustees of the College that the donations that Mr Staley had made to the College were not tainted by gains generated by Mr Epstein. He also submitted that the preparation of this document was not the sole purpose of Mr Staley’s presence in New York on 12 September; he was engaged during the day on other Barclays business.

The document itself does not deal with the question of whether any donations to the College were tainted with gains generated by Mr Epstein. It is clear from the document itself that they had been prepared to address the question of Mr Staley’s relationship with Mr Epstein more generally. This is apparent from the second bullet point in the document which reads as follows:

“Given my long relationship with JE, and particularly in light of the recent understanding of the enormity of his evil, I understand the questions you may have regarding that relationship, and am here to answer those questions.”

Mr Staley’s evidence was that he believed going into the meeting that the main concern of the College was whether Mr Epstein’s money had benefited the College. Ms Wiggins’s recollection was different; she said that this concern arose in the course of the question and answer session that followed Mr Staley’s presentation when it became clear that the Trustees’ real concern was about whether Mr Epstein’s money had benefited the college and that she had a specific discussion with Mr Staley about that point after the meeting. Mr Higgins in his cross-examination also thought that the original enquiry was broader “than money”.

We prefer the evidence of Ms Wiggins and Mr Higgins on this point. It is also consistent with the whole tenor of the document which focuses on the relationship between Mr Epstein and Mr Staley and also the fact that the Bowdoin College article that had led to Mr Staley making his presentation to the trustees had been focused on the relationship between the two men, rather than donations.

The manuscript notes that Ms Wiggins prepared of the meeting with the Bowdoin College Trustees were in evidence. These notes were not passed on to anyone else at Barclays.

It appears from these notes that at the question and answer session Mr Staley told the Trustees that Mr Epstein “was a client + then personal friendship”. Likewise, he appears to have said it was a “personal relationship” after Mr Epstein’s conviction.Ms Wiggins told the Tribunal that this was the first time she had ever heard him put it that way; up until that point, Mr Staley had always described the relationship as a professional one to her.

As the Authority submitted, if Ms Wiggins had previously been told that the relationship was a purely professional one, it is likely, consistent with the content of the Bowdoin College Talking Points, that Mr Staley had told everyone else at Barclays, in particular Mr Higgins and Mr Hoyt, that the relationship was a purely professional one.