![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
Prohibition
Prohibition
Section 56 FSMA confers upon the Authority the power to make a prohibition order against an individual prohibiting that individual from performing a specified function, any function falling within a specified description, or any function, if it appears to the Authority that the individual is not a fit and proper person to perform functions in relation to a regulated activity by an authorised person.
At the relevant time the Authority’s Enforcement Guide (“EG”) set out its guidance on the Authority’s approach to prohibition orders. EG 9.1 stated that the Authority may exercise this power where it considers that, to achieve any of its regulatory objectives, it is appropriate either to prevent an individual from performing any functions in relation to regulated activities or to restrict the functions which he may perform. It is therefore clear that the Authority may exercise this power where it considers it necessary to do so in order to further the consumer protection objective or the integrity objective, as described at [16] and [18] above.
EG 9.3.2 makes it clear that the Authority will consider all the relevant circumstances of the case which may include, but are not limited to, certain identified factors. Those factors include:
The criteria for assessing fitness and propriety, that is honesty, integrity and reputation; competence and capability; and financial soundness.
To what extent the person has failed to comply with rules applicable to him, or has been knowingly concerned in contravention by the relevant firm of a requirement imposed on the firm under FSMA.
The nature of the particular controlled function which the person is (or was) performing, the nature and activities of the firm concerned, and the markets in which the person operates.
The severity of the risk which the person poses to consumers and confidence in the financial system.
The person’s previous disciplinary record and general compliance history.
- 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