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

Mr Staley remained in contact with Mr Epstein via email whilst Mr Epstein was in prison. Some of the correspondence related to financial and business matters but it is clear that Mr Staley gave Mr Epstein a significant number of messages of support during this time. For example:

Mr Staley indicated on a number of occasions during this period that he was keen to see Mr Epstein. On 18 July 2008, he said: “I just remembered, I’m in Miami three time [sic] in January. Can I come visit?” And on 19 July he said: “I will work with leslie to see you in January, although I may try to get there earlier.”

Mr Epstein was granted work release in October 2008. Mr Staley made plans to visit Mr Epstein in Miami which he accepted was a show of support for Mr Epstein. The visit took place on 15 January 2009, at premises Mr Epstein was using as his office while he was on work release.

On 22 July 2009, Mr Epstein was released from prison to serve a year of probation under house arrest. Mr Staley was one of four people Mr Epstein emailed on his release stating simply “free and home”. Mr Staley responded “I toast your courage!!!!!”. Mr Staley explained in his evidence that this response indicated that he was loyal to Mr Epstein and had recognised that spending time in prison was a “tough thing”. Mr Staley’s evidence was that Mr Epstein was somebody that JPM had had a long business relationship with and who he had come to know reasonably well. Mr Staley, as one of a few select people who had been informed of Mr Epstein’s release, was showing a clear demonstration of support, consistent with the support he had shown Mr Epstein during his incarceration.

After Mr Epstein’s indictment in 2006, as Mr Staley was aware, JPM decided to have a “banking only” relationship with Mr Epstein which continued on that basis until he was asked to leave the bank in 2013.

Mr Staley continued to have a relationship with Mr Epstein. He maintained that the basis for that relationship continued to be grounded in business, because Mr Epstein continued to be influential in business and his network remained as important as ever both to him and a wide range of people. In Mr Staley’s view Mr Epstein was still capable of bringing value to commercial relationships as a result of his contacts.

Mr Staley confided in Mr Epstein and sought Mr Epstein’s counsel on a number of sensitive business matters in the period after Mr Epstein’s release. The first example occurs in July 2008, whilst Mr Epstein was in prison, when Mr Staley sought Mr Epstein’s advice on negotiating his salary with Mr Dimon at JPM.

Mr Staley emailed Mr Epstein on 17 July 2008 saying: “Jamie wants me to tell him how much I should make this year, given the expected bank results and my results.To put it in context, my business will be down around 15% this year. What do you think?”

In his response Mr Epstein advised Mr Staley to say to Mr Dimon “Tell him a one million dollar increase to 25 million...”. He also offered personal encouragement of Mr Staley not to accept any reduction in salary.

In his cross-examination, Mr Staley accepted that the information shared was on a “personal professional issue” and conceded that the information would not have been public knowledge. We accept the Authority’s submission that Mr Staley would not share this information with Mr Epstein were there not a high degree of trust between them.

Mr Staley also shared information with Mr Epstein concerning transactions JPM was involved with, again demonstrating a high degree of trust between them as these potential acquisitions were not public knowledge.

On 23 August 2008 Mr Staley emailed Mr Epstein regarding two potential transactions in which Mr Staley was involved in his capacity as CEO of JPM’s asset management business, namely the potential purchase of a company called Dimensional and the potential sale of another company, namely American Century. He stated:

“I'm trying to do two deals at the same time: buy dimensional and sell american century. It's going to be an interesting fall. I will miss stopping by your office for advice.”

This email indicates that it was Mr Staley’s practice to seek Mr Epstein’s advice on deals which were commercially sensitive and that he would do so in person at his office.

In June 2009, Mr Staley thanked Mr Epstein for his advice in relation to American Century.

On 27 September 2008 Mr Staley emailed Mr Epstein disclosing information regarding inflows of cash into JPM’s Private Bank. He said: “I'm spending a lot of time with Treasury. The Private Bank has brought in $44 billion dollars in the last two weeks. Unreal.” In the same email Mr Staley told Mr Epstein he was exiting a named individual who was a client of JPM from the Bank. With regard to the latter, Mr Staley accepted in cross-examination that he had shared information subject to client confidentiality with Mr Epstein without the permission of either the client or JPM. As regards the information concerning the inflows into the Private Bank, Mr Staley said that he did not know whether or not the information was known outside JPM at the time he told Mr Epstein but he accepted that it was information that would have to be used with discretion. We infer from that statement that Mr Staley regarded Mr Epstein as somebody he could trust with this information.

In October 2008, Mr Staley also sent Mr Epstein confidential information relating to a further project in which JPM was involved. He emailed Mr Epstein on 10 October as follows:

“I am dealing with the Fed on an idea to solve things. I need a smart friend to help me think through this stuff.

Can I get you out for a weekend to help me (are they listening?).”

On 11 October 2008, Mr Staley followed up with a term sheet for “Micawber” which was the codename given to a proposal between JPM and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, that JPM would create a special purpose vehicle (SPV) that would borrow funds from the Federal Reserve, in order to purchase short-term obligations of banks and holding companies.

Mr Staley explained that there were concerns at the time that the money market fund industry was growing larger than the deposit base in the United States and there was no government security around the money market fund industry. As JPM had one of the larger money market funds Mr Staley was engaged in a discussion with the US Treasury, and the Federal Reserve and others to discuss about how they might secure the money market fund industry and he sought advice from a number of people, one of them being Mr Epstein, who he accepted was the “smart friend” referred to in the email quoted at [105] above.

Mr Staley accepted under cross-examination that he had shared the proposal with Mr Epstein, asked for his advice on the proposal when he was serving his sentence, and sent him the term sheetand proposed SPV structure.

Mr Epstein appeared to be the only person who received details of the proposals who was not involved in the transaction. Mr Staley’s position in cross-examination was that bankers often seek counsel with people that they trust and confide in all the time. The inference to be drawn from that comment is that Mr Staley considered that Mr Epstein fell into that category. Although it would usually be the case that transactions of this kind are kept confidential to those who are directly involved in the transaction or need to know about it, we make no findings as to whether in fact that Mr Staley breached any duty of confidentiality in providing information to Mr Epstein, but we find that the information was provided to Mr Epstein on the basis that it would be treated with discretion on the basis that Mr Epstein was someone he trusted and habitually confided in. Mr Staley accepted that the information concerned was “non-public information” which could, as was the case here, include commercially sensitive information which regardless of whether there was a strict legal duty of confidentiality in relation to it, could be expected to be shared only with those who were trusted, despite this taking place after Mr Epstein had been convicted and was still serving his sentence.

Following Mr Epstein’s release from prison, contact between Mr Staley and Mr Epstein continued on a frequent and regular basis, even after Mr Staley moved to lead JPM’s Investment Bank in 2009. In the period between 2008 and 2012 Mr Epstein and Mr Staley exchanged over 1,200 emails. In addition, it is likely that they had numerous telephone conversations. Mr Staley confirmed in his evidence that Mr Epstein was someone who preferred to speak on the telephone.

Mr Staley accepted in his evidence that during 2009 to 2011, he became aware of numerous civil complaints filed against Mr Epstein in 2008, 2009, and 2010 that were brought by multiple women and minors. He also stated that by 2010 he knew that Mr Epstein had lied to him in 2006 about the ages of the complainants when Mr Staley had spoken to him. Accordingly, by that point he knew that the statement he made to Ms Erdoes in the email quoted at [88] above was incorrect.

Indeed, Mr Epstein himself kept Mr Staley apprised of some of what was being alleged against him. For example, in August 2011, without explanation, Mr Epstein forwarded to Mr Staley an article that appeared in Vanity Fair which referred to the fact that various women had come forward with allegations that Mr Epstein had molested them when they were under age.

We therefore cannot accept Mr Staley’s evidence in his witness statement that when Mr Epstein had been arrested he was shocked and surprised. What he told the Authority in interview, which was that he had no idea of the conduct being alleged, was also untrue.

Mr Staley accepted that during 2011 he was approached to have discussions with senior personnel at JPM who were concerned about the Bank’s continued association with Mr Epstein in light of the human trafficking allegations against Mr Epstein and atypical cash withdrawals from his account. He also accepted, when presented with evidence of the underlying email correspondence showing as such, that he discussed these with Mr Epstein. Accordingly, Mr Staley accepted that the assertion in his witness statement that no one had told him about the cash withdrawals was incorrect because he knew about the cash withdrawals (and discussed them with Mr Epstein) in 2011.

The evidence that was obtained in the US Proceedings indicates strongly that the balance of view within those asked to consider the matter was that Mr Epstein should not be retained as a client. It is recorded in that evidence that the view of Mr Stephen Cutler, the General Counsel of JPM, was that Mr Epstein would have been exited as a client of JPM had not Mr Staley vouched for him.

There is an email exchange amongst JPM executives considering the matter which records that JPM’s decision not to cease its relationship with Mr Epstein was all “due to Jes’s personal relationship.”

In his oral evidence, Mr Staley said that Mr Cutler, as General Counsel, was in a very powerful position and if he wanted to let Mr Epstein go as a client he had full latitude to do that and Mr Staley said he would not have stepped in his way.

We accept that the decision to retain Mr Epstein as a client at that time was not Mr Staley’s to take and that had Mr Cutler wished to do so he could have insisted that Mr Epstein be exited as a client. However, it is clear from the evidence that Mr Staley did speak in favour of retaining Mr Epstein as a client at this time and it is more likely than not that for that reason the decision was taken that Mr Epstein should be retained as a client.

Mr Staley became CEO of JPM’s Investment Bank in September 2009 so that he was now working in an area of the Bank which did not have a client relationship with Mr Epstein. However, it is clear that Mr Staley still valued the relationship and in particular, the benefits that could accrue to the Investment Bank as a result of Mr Epstein’s wide network of contacts with influential people.

After his release from prison and return to New York, meetings between Mr Staley and Mr Epstein invariably took place at Mr Epstein’s house on 71^st Street as a place for business meetings and in common with other high-profile and wealthy individuals Mr Staley visited Mr Epstein at the townhouse, often in the company of such individuals.

In his witness statement, Mr Staley sought to underplay the number of times that he met Mr Epstein at the townhouse. He said that after he became CEO of the Investment Bank until he left JPM at the beginning of 2013, he met Mr Epstein “several times a year” at his house. However, in his Deposition in the US Proceedings he accepted that between July 2009 and the end of 2012 he visited the house approximately 40 times. Mr Staley did not contradict that evidence in his oral evidence in these proceedings, which would indicate that he visited Mr Epstein’s house on average once a month during this period. Mr Staley admitted in cross-examination that not all of these meetings were for business purposes, stating that whilst most of the contact was related to business “like in any business relationship there was a friends side to it as well, but I think it was founded on the business relationship… he became a friend.”

As well as visits to the townhouse, there were visits to other properties owned by Mr Epstein.

In November 2009 Mr Staley visited Mr Epstein’s ranch near Santa Fe. Mr Staley said that the opportunity arose because he was on his way to Albuquerque for business purposes and that Mr Epstein had recommended that he should take the opportunity to visit the ranch.

The original plan appears to have been that Mr Staley would visit the ranch over the weekend and stay overnight with his wife, although in the event it was just Mr Staley (and he did not stay overnight). Mr Epstein was not present when Mr Staley visited, although Mr Staley accepted that he wanted to be there with Mr Epstein.

Mr Staley sent this email to Mr Epstein after he arrived at the ranch:

“So when all hell breaks lose [sic], and the world is crumbling, I will come here, and be at peace.

Presently, I’m in the hot tub with a glass of white wine.

This is an amazing place. Truly amazing.

Next time, we’re here together.

I owe you much. And I deeply appreciate our friendship. I have few so profound.”

Best

Jes”

In his cross-examination, Mr Staley explained why he expressed himself in these terms. He said that Mr Epstein had a very deep impact on his career and so he was acknowledging that impact and saying it was profound. Although he acknowledged that the language was friendly, he said that he had few close personal friends and that Mr Epstein was not one of them. He did, however, acknowledge that Mr Epstein was a “profound professional friend”, which is consistent with what he said in his Deposition in the US Proceedings, where he said Mr Epstein was “a close professional relationship and I would describe that at times as a friend”.

In January 2011, Mr Staley made a second visit to Mr Epstein’s island in the US Virgin Islands. We have already referred to the first visit at [87] above.

On the second visit, Mr Staley was sailing in the region on his boat. On that occasion, Mr Staley emailed Mr Epstein: “Anchored in Christmas cove. Heaven is being on Bequia. Safe travels to Paris. And, as always, thanks for the friendship.” Mr Epstein responded by offering the use of jet skis, snorkels and boats on his island. Although Mr Epstein does not appear to have been present, he nonetheless arranged a tour for Mr Staley, emailing the person who ran the island for Mr Epstein: “I know the time is crazy however Jes staley [sic] is my closest friend please call and host.” Mr Staley emailed Mr Epstein afterwards stating: “Terrific. Lots of workers. What a paradise. When I retire, I’m going to put a mooring in front of your dock for my boat”

In addition to the above, there appears to have been an earlier visit in January 2010. On 15 January 2010, Mr Staley emailed Mr Epstein: “Arrived at your harbor. Someday, we have to do this together.” Later that day, Mr Staley followed up: “That was cool.” Mr Epstein responded: “yup,, [sic] great seeing you.” Mr Staley accepted in cross-examination that it appeared he had met Mr Epstein on the island and then continued sailing on to Norman Island.

In June 2012, Mr Staley had intended to visit the island with his wife, including by flying there together with Mr Epstein on his plane, although in fact the trip (which had been planned in April 2012) was cancelled last minute. This visit was a suggestion that had come from Mr Staley.

Despite Mr Staley having asserted that he did not socialise with Mr Epstein and only ever attended a social occasion with him once, it is clear, as he admitted in his cross-examination, that there were a number of purely social events that he attended with Mr Epstein.

For example, in January 2010, Mr Staley appears to have attended a birthday dinner for Mr Epstein in Florida. Mr Epstein offered to provide Mr Staley with transport for the occasion. Afterwards Mr Epstein described it as “a perfect birthday dinner”. Mr Staley accepted that he had been to Mr Epstein’s birthday celebration and that it was not a business occasion.

Mr Staley also appears to have attended a dinner on a Saturday night with Mr Epstein in September 2010. Mr Epstein wrote the next day: “Thanks for last night” Mr Staley responded: “It was fun. And great to see you with so many friends. Tuesday should be interesting.” As the Authority submitted, whilst bankers do attend networking dinners, the fact that this was at the weekend, that Mr Epstein was thanking Mr Staley (rather than the other way around) and that Mr Staley makes reference to “so many friends” of Mr Epstein would appear to lead to the inference that this was more akin to a social gathering than a business one. Mr Staley accepted that it “[c]ould have been business, could not have been business”. We accept, as submitted by the Authority, that this evidence demonstrates that it was not wholly unusual for Mr Staley to attend dinners with Mr Epstein that were not business-related.

During this period, Mr Staley shared with Mr Epstein non-public information about his own potential career moves.

In particular, in July 2012, Mr Staley shared with Mr Epstein a draft announcement regarding him stepping down as CEO of JPM’s investment bank. He sought Mr Epstein’s comments on the document and Mr Epstein sent amendments. Mr Staley accepted that he had sent that document to Mr Epstein because he trusted his advice and trusted him to be discreet.

In the summer of 2012, as he accepted in interview, Mr Staley discussed his application to be Barclays CEO in 2012 with Mr Epstein and stated that he “trusted him to be discreet and that was it”. When asked why discretion would be necessary in his view, and it was put to him that it was because the information should not have been passed on, he replied: “No, that's not right. I have the ability to pass that information on to individuals that I choose but the information “should be handled with discretion.”

As was the case with previous instances of Mr Staley sharing non-public or confidential information with Mr Epstein, as referred to at [104] and [109] above, this information was provided to Mr Epstein on the basis that it would be treated with discretion on the basis that Mr Epstein was someone Mr Staley trusted and habitually confided in.

Such trust and confidence is indicative of a close relationship and it was reciprocated by Mr Epstein at the time arguing for Mr Staley’s appointment as CEO of Barclays, and his credentials for that position, with a journalist at the New York Times.

It is also clear from email exchanges between Mr Epstein and Mr Staley in October 2012 that Mr Staley confided to Mr Epstein about whether or not to join Blue Mountain, which he did in January 2013.

We have referred to the fact that Mr Staley and Mr Epstein exchanged numerous emails between 2009 and 2012. The vast majority of this email traffic was conducted with Mr Staley using his JPM work email account. However, Mr Staley did on occasion use his own personal email address and, despite initially denying that this was the case, in answer to a question from the Tribunal, Mr Staley did give his private email address to Mr Epstein. Nevertheless, the two men continued to communicate most of the time through Mr Staley’s work account.

We accept the Authority’s submission that the correspondence between Mr Staley and Mr Epstein during this period indicates a personal closeness and warmth between the two men. In addition to the email that Mr Staley sent Mr Epstein after his release from prison in July 2009 referred to at [93] above, and the email Mr Staley sent from Mr Epstein’s ranch in November 2009 referred to at [125] above, the Authority brought to our attention to the following examples: