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

As we have mentioned above, Mr Hoyt turned his mind to preparing a response to the Authority based on the material contained in the Bowdoin College Talking Points. This meant that the opportunity to prepare a more comprehensive document that set out in detail a record of all the relevant events in the relationship between Mr Staley and Mr Epstein was not taken.

At first, Mr Hoyt followed the approach of preparing a draft letter to be addressed from Mr Staley to Mr Higgins recording Mr Staley’s account of the facts of his relationship with Mr Epstein on the basis that this was a letter that would be passed on to the Authority.

It is clear from the text of the drafts of this letter that the substance of the response was based on the content of the Bowdoin College Talking Points. As Mr Hoyt said in his cross-examination:

“I took the substance of the Bowdoin talking points and went to transpose that into a draft of a note that would come from Mr Staley to Mr Higgins laying out essentially the same content as relevant to the FCA’s enquiry.”

Mr Hoyt prepared the first draft on 16 September 2019. He showed this to Ms Wiggins who made some amendments which are shown in blue ink on the draft. Mr Hoyt then produced a further draft on 18 September 2019 which took account of Ms Wiggins’s changes and shared this draft with Mr Staley on or around 19 September 2019.

One particular point to note from changes made between the first and second drafts is that Ms Wiggins deleted the following sentence:

“As a result of his introduction of business to JP Morgan, he and I became professionally fairly close over the course of 7 – 8 years.”

Initially in her cross-examination Ms Wiggins doubted that she had deleted those words because it appeared from the copy of the document that she was shown that the deletion had been made in black ink, whereas she used blue ink. She also said she had no reason to delete it as it was a correct statement. However, after Mr Hoyt disclosed to the Tribunal that he had the original of the document which clearly showed the deletion had been made in blue ink, Ms Wiggins was recalled and confirmed that it must have been her who deleted the words in question.

Ms Wiggins cannot explain why she deleted it. Mr Hoyt, however, recalled discussing the Authority’s request with Ms Wiggins at the time and said in evidence:

“I believe her view that that sentence was not relevant to the Authority’s enquiry had to do with her understanding which I shared, that the Authority was mainly focused on whether Mr Staley would have been aware of, in a position to be aware of or had participated in the unlawful activities that Mr Epstein had been charged with….And I believe that her view, which I thought was reasonable upon hearing it, was that that sentence about being fairly professionally close wasn’t really as relevant to that enquiry.”

As we have found, the Authority’s enquiry was wider in scope than that, but Mr Hoyt’s statement reflects what Mr Higgins believed to be the focus of the Authority’s enquiry and the fact that he did not pick up from his conversation with Mr Davidson that the Authority wished to know whether the relationship was a close one. As we have indicated above, Mr Staley did not see this draft so he would have been unaware that the deleted words had been contained in it but did not feature in the second draft, which he did see.

Mr Hoyt recalls that Mr Staley read the draft carefully and confirmed that he was comfortable with it, subject to it being reviewed by others.

On or around 23 September, Mr Hoyt showed the same draft to Mr Higgins, noting in the process that both Mr Staley and Ms Wiggins had reviewed the draft and were comfortable with it.

Mr Higgins had two comments, which were to (i) re-order the substance chronologically; and (ii) to explain the reason for the work release visit in 2009.

A further version of this letter was produced on Thursday 26 September 2019. This draft took into account Mr Higgins’s request that it be reordered chronologically.

It is important to note that this draft introduced the sentence: “I did occasionally meet with Epstein after his release.” Mr Smith sought to suggest in the cross-examination of Mr Hoyt that he (Mr Hoyt) had inserted that sentence and that it was inconsistent with what he knew. Mr Hoyt could not recall who had instigated that insertion, but he believed that it was intended to reflect that there were occasional meetings with Mr Epstein after the point in time when he was released from prison.

We accept that evidence from Mr Hoyt; what he said is consistent with the information set out in the Bowdoin College Talking Points regarding the infrequency of Mr Staley’s meetings with Mr Epstein after his incarceration, and the similar information provided to journalists by Mr Doherty with Mr Staley’s agreement. We have no reason to believe that Mr Hoyt would have inserted something into the draft which he knew not to be correct.

On Monday 30 September 2019, there was a call between Mr Staley, Mr Higgins and Mr Hoyt to discuss the draft response. At some point before this, Mr Staley had asked Mr Hoyt whether he could forward a draft of the letter to his personal counsel, Mr Farmer. The subsequent advice (over which there has been a partial waiver of privilege) from Mr Staley’s lawyers was that this letter should not be finalised but instead the response to the Authority should take the form of a shorter letter from Mr Higgins. The next draft of the response was dated 1 October 2019 and in that form, as discussed below.

It is not clear whether or not Mr Staley saw the draft of 26 September 2019 although Mr Staley’s evidence in his first witness statement was that all the versions “contain an accurate description of my relationship with Mr Epstein”.