
Upper Tribunal upholds Jes Staley ban, former CEO of Barclays.
30/06/2025
The FCA's decision to ban Jes Staley, former CEO of Barclays, from holding senior management roles in the financial services industry has been upheld by the Upper Tribunal.
Mr Staley was found to have acted with a lack of integrity, failed to be open and cooperative, and failed to make appropriate disclosures to the FCA.
The FCA proposed to fine Mr Staley £1.8m. The Tribunal reduced this fine to £1.1m as, after the FCA issued its Decision Notice, Barclays decided not to permit Mr Staley to receive deferred shares to which he could have been entitled.
The issues at hand
- Mr Staley approved a letter sent to the FCA that contained misleading statements about the nature of his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein and their last point of contact.
- The letter claimed that Mr Staley did not have a close relationship with Mr Epstein. In emails between the two, Mr Staley described Mr Epstein as one of his 'deepest' and 'most cherished' friends.
- The letter from Barclays to the FCA also claimed Mr Staley ceased contact with Mr Epstein well before he joined Barclays. However, Mr Staley was in contact with Mr Epstein in the days leading up to his appointment as CEO, which was announced on 28 October 2015. Mr Staley joined Barclays in December 2015.
- Hundreds of emails were key to the FCA's investigation and showed that the two had a close relationship over many years. The pair were also in contact much later than Mr Staley claimed in his letter. They showed Mr Staley was in contact indirectly with Mr Epstein in 2016 and 2017.
The FCA
- Alleged that Mr Staley acted recklessly when he signed the letter, and the Tribunal agreed.
- They found that Mr Staley had a clear motive for downplaying the relationship and that, when he described his relationship to Barclays, he had no reason to believe the full position about it would emerge through the emails obtained by the FCA.
- The Tribunal also found that some of Mr Staley’s evidence lacked credibility, and that he has shown no remorse for his conduct.
Therese Chambers, joint executive director of enforcement and market oversight at the FCA, said:
- Mr Staley chose to take a calculated risk that we would take his inaccurate account of his relationship with Mr Epstein at face value.
- He hoped that the truth would never come to light and that he would get away with it.
- Such a serious lack of integrity is contrary to our requirements for those at the top.
- 'The Tribunal’s decision shows that we can and will act to protect the financial system by holding those in senior roles to the high standards required of them.'
Notes to editors
- See the Upper Tribunal judgement. The link is external. https://www.gov.uk/tax-and-chancery-tribunal-decisions/james-edward-staley-v-the-financial-conduct-authority-2025-ukut-00203-tcc
- Decision Notice for Mr Staley (PDF). https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/decision-notices/james-edward-staley-2023.pdf
- The FCA and PRA fined Mr Staley £642,430 in 2018 for how he acted in response to a letter from a whistleblower. https://www.fca.org.uk/news/press-releases/fca-and-pra-jointly-fine-mr-james-staley-announce-special-requirements
- Mr Staley has 14 days to appeal the ruling.
- The Tribunal's decision to reduce the final penalty to £1.1m (which was a reduction to the FCA's proposed penalty of £1.8m) was because of Barclays' decision, following the publication of the Decision Notice in October 2023, not to permit Mr Staley to receive deferred shares to which he could have been entitled.
Source
https://www.fca.org.uk/news/press-releases/upper-tribunal-upholds-jes-staley-ban
The Team
Meet the team of industry experts behind Comsure
Find out moreLatest News
Keep up to date with the very latest news from Comsure
Find out moreGallery
View our latest imagery from our news and work
Find out moreContact
Think we can help you and your business? Chat to us today
Get In TouchNews Disclaimer
As well as owning and publishing Comsure's copyrighted works, Comsure wishes to use the copyright-protected works of others. To do so, Comsure is applying for exemptions in the UK copyright law. There are certain very specific situations where Comsure is permitted to do so without seeking permission from the owner. These exemptions are in the copyright sections of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (as amended)[www.gov.UK/government/publications/copyright-acts-and-related-laws]. Many situations allow for Comsure to apply for exemptions. These include 1] Non-commercial research and private study, 2] Criticism, review and reporting of current events, 3] the copying of works in any medium as long as the use is to illustrate a point. 4] no posting is for commercial purposes [payment]. (for a full list of exemptions, please read here www.gov.uk/guidance/exceptions-to-copyright]. Concerning the exceptions, Comsure will acknowledge the work of the source author by providing a link to the source material. Comsure claims no ownership of non-Comsure content. The non-Comsure articles posted on the Comsure website are deemed important, relevant, and newsworthy to a Comsure audience (e.g. regulated financial services and professional firms [DNFSBs]). Comsure does not wish to take any credit for the publication, and the publication can be read in full in its original form if you click the articles link that always accompanies the news item. Also, Comsure does not seek any payment for highlighting these important articles. If you want any article removed, Comsure will automatically do so on a reasonable request if you email info@comsuregroup.com.