James Edward Staley v The Financial Conduct Authority
June 26, 2025
UPPER TRIBUNAL (TAX AND CHANCERY CHAMBER
United Kingdom
Areas of Law
- Administrative Law
- Banking and Finance Law
- Civil Procedure
June 26, 2025
UPPER TRIBUNAL (TAX AND CHANCERY CHAMBER
United Kingdom
AI Generated Summary
The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber), per Upper Tribunal Judge Timothy Herrington, addressed Jes Staleys reference of the FCAs Decision Notice imposing a financial penalty and proposing a prohibition order. The case turned on an 8 October 2019 letter from Barclays chair Nigel Higgins, approved by Staley, which told the FCA that Staley did not have a close relationship with Jeffrey Epstein and that his last contact was well before joining Barclays in 2015. After reviewing extensive emails and witness evidence (including Bowdoin College Talking Points), the Tribunal found both statements inaccurate, the letters content material to the FCAs enquiry, and that Staley approved it recklessly, thereby lacking integrity and breaching ICR 1, ICR 3 and SMCR 4. It dismissed the reference except to recalculate the penalty to a31,107,306.92, excluding unvested LTIPs from relevant income, and left the FCA free to make a prohibition order. The decision was unanimous.
INTRODUCTION
On 30 May 2023 the Financial Conduct Authority (“the Authority”) through its Regulatory Decisions Committee issued a decision notice (the “Decision Notice”) to the Applicant (“Mr Staley”).
In the Decision Notice the Authority decided that Mr Staley was in breach of three provisions of the Authority’s Handbook, namely ICR 1 (the requirement to act with integrity), ICR 3 (the requirement to be open and cooperative with regulators) and SMCR 4 (the requirement to disclose appropriately any information of which the Authority would reasonably expect notice). The Authority decided to impose upon Mr Staley a penalty of £1,812,800 and to make an order prohibiting him from performing any senior management or significant influence function in relation to any regulated activity carried on by an authorised person, exempt person or exempt professional firm pursuant to s 56 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (“FSMA”).
In brief, the Authority considered that Mr Staley had recklessly and with a lack of integrity approved a letter being sent to the Authority on 8 October 2019 (the “Letter”) that contained misleading statements, (i) as to the nature of his relationship with Mr Jeffrey Epstein (“Mr Epstein”) and (ii) as to the time that they were last in contact. The Letter said that the relationship was not close and that the last contact was well before the Applicant joined Barclays Bank plc (“Barclays”) as its Chief Executive Officer in December 2015. The Authority contends that both these statements were inaccurate and misleading.
On 26 June 2023 Mr Staley referred the Authority’s decision to the Tribunal. He denies that the Letter contained misleading statements.
BACKGROUND TO THE REFERENCE
Between December 2015 and October 2021, Mr Staley was the Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”) of Barclays Bank Plc (“Barclays”). Before he became the CEO of Barclays, Mr Staley was for most of his career employed by JP Morgan Chase (“JPM”), from 1979 to January 2013. Mr Staley met Mr Jeffrey Epstein in 1999 or 2000, while the Applicant was the Head of JPM’s Private Bank, of which Mr Epstein was a client. The Applicant became the CEO of the Investment Bank at JPM in around September 2009. The Applicant left JPM in January 2013. He became the Managing Partner of Blue Mountain Capital Management LLC in January 2013, remaining in that role until he joined Barclays as CEO in December 2015, an appointment that was announced in October 2015.
In July 2019, Mr Epste