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

On 13 October 2015, news of Mr Staley’s likely appointment had leaked in the Financial Times. On 16 October 2015, Mr Epstein was contacted by Mr Watkins of the Mail on Sundayabout that appointment. At that time, Mr Staley’s appointment to Barclays had been leaked as likely, but it was not yet confirmed. He did not have his approvals from the Authority or the PRA at this time. A public announcement had not yet been made by Barclays.

Mr Epstein forwarded Mr Watkins’s email to Mr Staley who in turn forwarded it to Mr Steven Rubenstein, a public relations adviser. Mr Staley and Mr Epstein exchanged emails discussing how to respond to Mr Watkins’ enquiry about the relationship between Mr Staley and Mr Epstein. On 17October, Mr Staley emailed Mr Epstein as follows:

“Ok. I’m going to play is [sic] simple. I’ve known you as a client. I will tell B tomorrow. Steven is fine. Let me know if they say something else. But stay away from them. I’m fine.”

It is clear from this email that Mr Staley was adopting a strategy of downplaying the nature of his relationship with Mr Epstein, both in his dealings with the press and with Barclays, by taking the line that relationship was purely a client/banker relationship, which would imply that it only existed whilst Mr Staley was working at JPM. Although Mr Staley suggested in his cross-examination that the reference to “B” could have been a reference to Blue Mountain rather than Barclays, it is clear from other emails that Mr Staley sent at this time, that he used the letter “B” to refer to Barclays, and we so find.

In fact, Mr Staley did not speak to Barclays about his relationship with Mr Epstein until the Mail on Sunday contacted Barclays directly on Saturday, 24 October 2015. When that happened, the matter was passed to Mr Doherty to deal with.

As we have said, we regard Mr Doherty as an honest and reliable witness and we accept his evidence to the effect that he would not tell the press anything in relation to Mr Staley’s relationship with Mr Epstein that he did not believe to be true. Furthermore, as Mr Doherty said in his evidence, Mr Doherty’s source of any facts relating to this relationship would be Mr Staley himself.

Around lunchtime UK time Mr Doherty rang Mr Staley (who was then in New York) to discuss the enquiry. This was their first conversation about Mr Epstein. Mr Doherty does not recall exactly what he asked Mr Staley during that telephone call, but recalled that (i) Mr Staley had volunteered that he had known Mr Epstein quite well for a long time “as part of a professional relationship which had begun when Mr Staley became head of JPM’s Private Bank at a time when Mr Epstein was a client of that bank”; and (ii) Mr Staley left him with “the clear impression that he [Mr Staley] had not discussed this candidacy with Mr Epstein and he was not aware of any interest Mr Epstein might have had in this process”.

Barclays instructed a law firm, Simkins LLP (“Simkins”) to assist it with its response to Mr Watkins. Simkins prepared a draft letter dealing with the queries. Mr Doherty sent this draft letter to Mr Staley.

The draft letter contained the following statement:

“We can further confirm, that Mr Staley has informed our client [i.e. Barclays] that he is at best an acquaintance of Mr Epstein. They are certainly not close friends as your allegations might imply…”

Mr Doherty was clear in his evidence that the source of what he wrote, or instructed Simkins LLP to write, would be based on what he was told by Mr Staley. We therefore find that this statement reflects the impression that Mr Staley would have given Mr Doherty about the nature of his relationship with Mr Epstein in their earlier discussion.

Mr Staley did not himself seek to correct this impression. It was Mr Rubenstein, an adviser to Mr Staley, who suggested that the wording might be changed. He emailed Mr Staley as follows:

“I was thinking of changing one thing:

As Drafted:

We can further confirm, that Mr Staley has informed our client that he is at best an acquaintance of Mr Epstein.

They are certainly not close friends as your allegations might imply, nor has Mr Staley asked for Mr Epstein's support, or for him (Mr Epstein) to make representations on his behalf

With edits:

We can further confirm, that Mr Staley has informed our client that while he knows Mr. Epstein from his time at JP Morgan, they are certainly not close friends as your allegations might imply. Nor has Mr Staley asked for Mr Epstein's support, or for him (Mr Epstein) to make representations on his behalf.”

Mr Staley copied and pasted this to Mr Doherty, without pointing out that the term “acquaintance” was inaccurate. As it happened, however, in the interim the letter had been sent out to the Mail on Sundaybecause of the impending print deadline, so that it was too late for any amendments. Mr Doherty apologised to Mr Staley for this, and forwarded the letter as sent. That email contained a further instruction that had come from Mr Doherty to Simkins about the letter, in which Mr Doherty had stated:

“There has been no contact between Jes Staley or Jeffrey Epstein, or discussion of this matter this year. We need that in the letter or via email from you if that will suffice.”

Mr Doherty accepted in cross-examination that he could not be sure that Mr Staley had “affirmatively said that” to him over the phone, but said that it was the “impression, misapprehension that I was under” and which he believed to be the case at the time. This statement made its way into the final letter.

It is clear that Mr Staley had noticed the extra statement about contact that year, because he forwarded Mr Doherty’s email to Mr Rubenstein, telling him: “Read down below. Don’t know if you saw this.” He did not take the matter up with Mr Doherty at that time.

The impression of Mr Staley and Mr Epstein’s relationship that Mr Doherty (and indeed Mr Lawrence Dickinson, Barclays’ Company Secretary, to whom Mr Staley also spoke) was under is also clear from two further emails sent on 25 and 26 October 2015:

Subsequent to the publication of the article on 25 October 2015, there was a face-to-face meeting between Mr Staley and Mr Doherty at the office of Spencer Stewart (a recruitment firm) in London. Mr Doherty recalls this as being on Monday 26 or Tuesday 27 October 2015, but in any event ahead of the public announcement of Mr Staley’s appointment on Wednesday 28 October 2015.

In the course of this conversation, Mr Staley gave Mr Doherty more details of his relationship with Mr Epstein than he had given over the prior weekend, disclosing to Mr Doherty some specific examples of interactions he had with Mr Epstein, and gave a general description of their relationship.

For example, Mr Staley told Mr Doherty that, whilst he had attended dinners at Mr Epstein’s house in Manhattan, Mr Epstein had never been to dinner at Mr Staley’s house. Mr Staley described being on reasonably friendly terms with Mr Epstein and that they had a drink together from time to time. Mr Doherty’s evidence included the following:

However, it would appear that Mr Staley did not at this stage disclose the fact of his most recent visit to the island in April 2015.

Mr Staley described to Mr Doherty the relationship with Mr Epstein in “two blocks”: one prior to 2012, when Mr Staley was still at JPM; and one after Mr Staley left JPM.

As far as the first block was concerned, Mr Staley told Mr Doherty that he and Mr Epstein had had fairly regular contact which was largely predicated on a business relationship and they had got on well, Mr Staley referring to the fact they would occasionally socialise together.

As far as the second block is concerned, Mr Staley told Mr Doherty that he and Mr Epstein remained in contact, but that contact had become less frequent as there was no client relationship between them after Mr Staley joined Blue Mountain in 2013. Mr Doherty’s understanding was that Mr Staley’s relationship with Mr Epstein during the period 2009-2012 had been (at least in part) based on a client relationship as “Mr Staley felt that he still semi-covered Mr Epstein as a client of JPM”. Mr Doherty said that Mr Staley gave him the impression that whilst contact still existed between them, the relationship had petered out somewhat since he had moved to Blue Mountain.

As our findings of fact on the nature of the relationship between Mr Epstein and Mr Staley demonstrated, frequent contact did in fact continue during the period 2009-2012 and did not “peter out” after Mr Staley joined Blue Mountain, as demonstrated by the fact that the two men remained close enough that Mr Epstein was one of the few people with whom Mr Staley had shared details of the Barclays recruitment process. As we have found, as already referred to, Mr Staley and Mr Epstein had a close relationship throughout the period 2013-2015 up until October 2015.

Mr Staley did not at this meeting specify to Mr Doherty exactly when he had last been in contact with Mr Epstein, although he was clear that contact between the two men continued until their last interaction at some point in 2015, reasonably recently before these discussions. Mr Doherty said that this was new information for him and not the impression that he been left with on Saturday 24October, at which time he understood that Mr Staley had not been in material (or any) contact with Mr Epstein in 2015. Mr Staley did not disclose to Mr Doherty that he was in fact still in frequent contact with Mr Epstein and that he had coterminously been discussing both the Barclays role and the Mail on Sunday approach with Mr Epstein. Mr Doherty in fact only learned about that from the Authority’s Decision Notice and considered that it would “obviously have been relevant” for him to have known at the time.

Mr Doherty’s advice to Mr Staley in the course of that meeting was to cease contact with Mr Epstein.

On the afternoon of 29 October 2015 Mr Doherty sent an email to Mr Hoskin, Head of Group Media Relations at Barclays, about a response to a further enquiry from the Mail on Sunday. He stated in that email that he specifically wanted to “repeat the word ‘acquainted’”. In view of our assessment of Mr Doherty, we find that Mr Doherty had obtained a clear impression from Mr Staley that the use of the “acquaintance” language and portraying the relationship as a banker-client one was an accurate way of describing the nature of the relationship between the two men.

This email resulted in a draft letter produced by Simkins, which stated:

“Mr Epstein was a client of JP Morgan’s Private Bank – of which Mr Staley was CEO for a period – and they became acquainted in that business context. As we have set out in our earlier correspondence, it would be misleading to portray this as a close relationship.

It is not appropriate for Mr Staley, or our client to comment further on confidential business interactions between Mr Staley and any client of JP Morgan, current or historical…”

This draft was sent to Mr Staley for his approval. Mr Doherty later reported that Mr Staley had approved it (and it is to be inferred from this that Mr Staley had done so).

In his cross-examination Mr Staley sought to distance himself from the wording used in this letter, saying that he did not draft it nor the earlier communications with the Mail on Sunday. He contended that Mr Doherty drafted it and that Mr Staley was always very clear that he had a close professional relationship with Mr Epstein so that when Mr Doherty was saying that the relationship was not a close one Mr Staley had not expressed that to him.

We reject Mr Staley’s evidence on this point. As we have said, we found Mr Doherty to be an honest and reliable witness and he had a very clear recollection of the impression that Mr Staley left with him during their various discussions in October 2015. The overall impression given was that the relationship was purely a banker/client relationship with a limited degree of social interaction and that an accurate way of describing the relationship was that the two men became acquainted with each other as a result of that banker/client relationship. That was clearly downplaying the relationship.

We come to that conclusion having taken account of the fact that in 2015 Mr Staley did not have access to the numerous emails that had been exchanged between him and Mr Epstein during his time at JPM. However, even in the absence of the material, whilst he might have been understandably vague on some of the detail of the various interactions, Mr Staley must have been aware that the relationship was a close one, and indeed was still continuing to be close in October 2015 when Mr Staley was discussing the Barclays opportunity with Mr Epstein. It is therefore clear that he chose not to disclose to Mr Doherty the essential facts that demonstrate that Mr Epstein and Mr Staley had been particularly close, both professionally and personally and, despite seeing the various communications before they were sent to the Mail on Sunday, did not seek to correct the errors in those communications either before or after they were sent. The die was cast when Mr Staley sent Mr Epstein the email referred to at [235] above where Mr Staley told Mr Epstein that he was going to “play it simple” and say that it was just a client relationship.