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

In summary, the Authority’s case on this issue is:

In summary, Mr Staley’s position on this issue is as follows:

The question as to whether Statement 2 was intended to refer only to in-person meetings is a matter that we need to assess when considering Mr Staley’s knowledge as to whether Statement 2 was inaccurate or not. At this stage, we are only making findings as to whether, viewed objectively, Statement 2 was inaccurate, based on the evidence before us. In that context, we will need to consider the question as to whether as a matter of ordinary language “contact” can embrace contact other than by physical meetings, and whether the contact in this case that took place through Ms Staley can also be regarded as contact between Mr Staley and Mr Epstein.

As described in [179] above, it is not disputed that Mr Staley and his family met Mr Epstein on Mr Epstein’s island for lunch on 12 April 2015.

It is not clear that that was in fact the last time that Mr Staley and Mr Epstein met in person. Email correspondence before the Tribunal indicates that a meeting was arranged to take place between Mr Epstein and Mr Staley, probably at Mr Epstein’s Manhattan house, on 9 July 2015. There is no evidence demonstrating that this meeting actually took place. Mr Staley says that he has no independent recollection of this whatsoever and is unable to say whether he attended the appointment or not. In our view, the evidence is insufficient to say that it is more likely than not that this meeting took place and, even if it did, we accept that it is quite likely that Mr Staley is right when he says he cannot recollect the meeting in the absence of any documentary evidence to support it. Accordingly, our finding is that the last physical meeting between Mr Epstein and Mr Staley took place in April 2015 and we would accept that it could be said that meeting took place “well before” Mr Staley joined Barclays.

As we found at [180] above, as with 2014, Mr Staley was regularly in contact with Mr Epstein throughout 2015 to October 2015, by email and by telephone. Mr Staley was giving Mr Epstein a commentary on his discussions with Barclays and their last email on the subject was on or around 12 October 2015. On 24 July 2015, Mr Epstein cautioned that the discussions should move to “phone only” and accordingly it is likely that there were telephone discussions on the subject as well during this period.

The last direct email between Mr Staley and Mr Epstein which was in evidence before us is dated 25 October 2015. In the period between 13 and 25 October Mr Staley and Mr Epstein had been communicating regarding press comment on Mr Staley’s likely appointment to Barclays, the matter having been leaked. We refer to these communications in further detail when considering what Mr Staley told Barclays about his relationship with Mr Epstein in October 2015, as set out below.

As we refer to later, during the course of dealing with these press enquiries, Mr Doherty advised Mr Staley to have no further contact with Mr Epstein. Mr Staley’s evidence was his last conversation with Mr Epstein was a telephone call on or around 29 October 2015.

Unrealistically, Mr Staley, both in interview with the Authority and during his cross-examination sought to maintain that this belief was that “contact” meant meeting somebody personally. However, when pressed on this point by Ms Mulcahy he finally acknowledged that “contact” meant something broader than simply seeing somebody. He said:

“Contact – direct contact is me being in contact with Epstein by email, phone, text et cetera, yes.”

As we have said, this point is different from the point as to whether “contact” was understood by Mr Staley to refer only to physical meetings. It is unarguable that the meaning of the ordinary English word “contact” is broader than being a synonym for “meeting” and Mr Staley had in the end to accept that was the case.

Accordingly, it is clear to us that Mr Staley and Mr Epstein were in contact until at least 29 October 2015. Again, on the basis of the ordinary meaning of the English language, that date was not “well before” Mr Staley joined Barclays in December 2015. Accordingly, on that basis Statement 2 was inaccurate.

The Authority also relied on its contention that Mr Staley was in contact with Mr Epstein through the intermediation of his daughter between March 2016 and February 2017 as further proof that Mr Staley’s last contact with Mr Epstein was not “well before” he joined Barclays. The following is a summary of the communications that took place:

Mr Staley denied in cross-examination that the second of the emails referred to above demonstrates that there was a prospect of renewing his relationship with Mr Epstein after he had been Barclays for a while. He said that the fact that he did not meet him shows that he did not want to meet him. However, if that were the case it is not clear why he volunteered the suggestion of a meeting through his daughter. Mr Staley’s evidence on this point is therefore not credible.

Mr Staley says that he has no recollection of the third and fourth of the emails referred to above. At least as far as the third email is concerned, we think that is unlikely bearing in mind the significance of the opportunity that was being described. That is not a matter that is easily forgotten.

Mr Staley appears to deny that this correspondence amounts to “contact” between himself and Mr Epstein because it was initiated by Mr Epstein, not Mr Staley’s daughter. We would accept that to be the case had Mr Staley either ignored the correspondence or simply told his daughter that it was inappropriate for him to reply bearing in mind his undertaking to Barclays not to have any further contact with Mr Epstein. He did not do that but appears to have given his daughter information necessary to reply to Mr Epstein. Mr Staley’s evidence was that he could not recall conversations with his daughter about these emails and his daughter did not appear as a witness. In those circumstances, it is clear to us that these communications, albeit through Ms Staley as a third party, amount to Mr Staley being in contact with Mr Epstein, according to the usual ordinary broad meaning of that term. If Mr Staley had been asked in 2017 whether he had been in contact with Mr Epstein, the right answer to that question would have been “not directly but I did respond to some enquiries he made with me via my daughter.” It would have been inaccurate to say that he had had no contact with Mr Epstein at all after October 2015.

Accordingly, we conclude that Statement 2 was inaccurate.