“I am writing to close the loop on your request for assurance that we have informed ourselves and are comfortable in regard to any association of Jes Staley or Barclays with Jeffrey Epstein. I can now report that Crawford Gillies, Bob Hoyt and I have had separate conversations with Jes where he has described his interactions with Mr. Epstein. Jes has confirmed to us that he did not have a close relationship with Mr. Epstein, and he is resolute that at no time did he see anything that would have suggested or revealed any aspect of the conduct that has been the subject of recent allegations. Jes’ last contact with Mr. Epstein was well before he joined Barclays in 2015. Separately, Barclays’ Financial Crime team has conducted a thorough review of our records, which did not reveal any client or customer relationship with Mr. Epstein. In sum, neither our discussions with Jes nor our review of the bank’s records have revealed any cause to suspect that Barclays or Jes have played any role in the activities of Mr. Epstein that have been under investigation. I trust this addresses your questions.”
“(1) There is no strict definition of what constitutes acting with integrity; it is a fact specific exercise; (2) Even though a person might not have been dishonest, if they either lack an ethical compass, or their ethical compass to a material extent points them in the wrong direction, that person will lack integrity; (3) Acting recklessly is another example of a lack of integrity not involving dishonesty. A person acts recklessly with respect to a result if he is aware of a risk that it will occur and it is unreasonable to take that risk having regard to the circumstances as he knows or believes them to be; (4) To turn a blind eye to the obvious and to fail to follow up obviously suspicious signs is a lack of integrity; (5) There are both subjective and objective elements to the test of what constitutes a lack of integrity. The test is essentially objective but nevertheless involves having regard to the state of mind of the actor as well as the facts which the person concerned knew.”
“One example of a lack of integrity not involving dishonesty is recklessness as to the truth of statements made to others who will or may rely on them or wilful disregard of information contradicting the truth of such statements.”
“46…. The subjective element focuses on the state of knowledge of the individual concerned as to the risks concerned. The objective element focuses on the question as to whether it was reasonable for the person concerned to have ignored the risk. Clearly, in considering a person’s state of awareness in relation to a risk, it is appropriate to have regard to what would reasonably have been appreciated or understood by persons in the same position as the individual in question, as the passage in Ford and Owen set out above clearly states. As Mr Jaffey submitted, the fact that the first element of the test of recklessness is subjective does not mean that the Tribunal cannot have regard to the inherent probabilities and, in particular, how a reasonable professional would respond in the relevant situation. By having regard to those factors, the Tribunal may conclude that the risks concerned would have been obvious to the person concerned and therefore can draw the inference that he or she was aware of the risks in question. 47.In our view, in his closing submissions Mr Strong illustrated the application of the relevant principles correctly with the following examples: (1) A person who recognises a risk of morally objectionable action which is unreasonable to take and ignores it lacks integrity precisely because they consciously take a risk, which is in fact unreasonable, of unethical conduct occurring. It does not matter whether the person appreciates that the action is morally wrong: if they do not appreciate the moral character of the action, their ethical compass is defective. (2) On the other hand, a person who does not appreciate that there is a risk of action being taken which would objectively be considered wrong is not reckless and does not lack integrity. They are not aware of a risk that the action in question may happen. Their ethical compass is not defective. That is the case whether or not someone else might have identified a risk of the relevant action occurring. That, as Ms Clarke submitted, could arise because of a lack of experience, competence or training on the part of the individual concerned…..” (1) A person who recognises a risk of morally objectionable action which is unreasonable to take and ignores it lacks integrity precisely because they consciously take a risk, which is in fact unreasonable, of unethical conduct occurring. It does not matter whether the person appreciates that the action is morally wrong: if they do not appreciate the moral character of the action, their ethical compass is defective. (2) On the other hand, a person who does not appreciate that there is a risk of action being taken which would objectively be considered wrong is not reckless and does not lack integrity. They are not aware of a risk that the action in question may happen. Their ethical compass is not defective. That is the case whether or not someone else might have identified a risk of the relevant action occurring. That, as Ms Clarke submitted, could arise because of a lack of experience, competence or training on the part of the individual concerned…..”
“It was the FCA's submission, and I accept, that in determining any penalty under section 129, the starting point for the court should be to consider the relevant DEPP penalty framework that was in existence at the time of commission of the market abuse in question. To do otherwise would risk introducing an inequality of treatment of defendants depending upon whether the proceedings were taken against them under the regulatory route or the court route and depending upon how long the proceedings had taken to come to a conclusion. By the same token, however, in common with the Upper Tribunal, the court is not bound by that framework, or by the FCA's view of how it should be applied. But if the court intends to depart from the framework in a particular case, it should explain why it considers it appropriate to do so. It occurred to me that in this regard there is some analogy with the approach of the criminal courts to the application of the sentencing guidelines produced by the Sentencing Council.”
“(5) In the case of a disciplinary reference or a reference under section 393(11), the Tribunal must determine what (if any) is the appropriate action for the decision-maker to take in relation to the matter, and on determining the reference, must remit the matter to the decision-maker with such directions (if any) as the Tribunal considers appropriate for giving effect to its determination. (6) In any other case, the Tribunal must determine the reference or appeal by either- (a) dismissing it; or (b) remitting the matter to the decision-maker with a direction to reconsider and reach a decision in accordance with findings of the Tribunal. (6A) The findings mentioned in subsection (6)(b) are limited to findings as to- (a) issues of fact or law; (b) the matters to be, or not to be, taken into account in making the decision; and (c) the procedural or other steps to be taken in connection with the making of the decision. (7) The decision-maker must act in accordance with the determination of, and any direction given by, the Tribunal.” (a) dismissing it; or (b) remitting the matter to the decision-maker with a direction to reconsider and reach a decision in accordance with findings of the Tribunal. (6A) The findings mentioned in subsection (6)(b) are limited to findings as to- (a) issues of fact or law; (b) the matters to be, or not to be, taken into account in making the decision; and (c) the procedural or other steps to be taken in connection with the making of the decision. (7) The decision-maker must act in accordance with the determination of, and any direction given by, the Tribunal.”
“39. If, having reviewed all the evidence and the factors taken into account by the Authority in making its decision, and having made findings of fact in relation to that evidence and such other findings of law that are relevant, the Tribunal concludes that the decision to prohibit is one that is reasonably open to the Authority then the correct course is to dismiss the reference. 40. Alternatively, if the Tribunal is not satisfied that in the light of its findings that the decision is one that in all the circumstances is within the range of reasonable decisions open to the Authority, the correct course is to remit the matter with a direction to reconsider the decision in the light of those findings. For example, that course would also be necessary were the Tribunal to make findings of fact that were clearly at variance with the findings made by the Authority, and which formed the basis of its decision. That course would also be necessary had there been a change of circumstance regarding the applicant which indicated that the original findings made on which the decision was based, for example as to his competence to undertake particular activities, had been overtaken by further developments, such as new evidence which clearly demonstrated the applicant’s proficiency in relation to the relevant matters. Such a course would not usurp the Authority’s role in making the overall assessment as to fitness and propriety but would ensure that it reconsidered its decision on a fully informed basis. In our view such a course is consistent with the policy referred to at [31] and [32] above as it leaves it to the Authority to make a judgment as to whether a prohibition order is appropriate.”
“It is nonetheless the case that regard must be had to the quality of the evidence. As the Court said in In re S-B, if an event is inherently improbable, it may take better quality evidence to persuade a court or tribunal that it has happened than would be required if the event were commonplace. There is, however, as Lord Hoffman in In re B had pointed out, at [15], no necessary connection between seriousness and inherent probability.”
“This performance was in no small way a credit to Jes Staley, who left Barclays as Chief Executive towards the end of the year, and the team he assembled. It is obviously not appropriate for me to comment at the moment, further than has been done already, on the circumstances of Jes’s departure. It is important to let the regulatory and related processes take their course and, at the time of writing this letter, they have not completed. It is appropriate, however, to recognise that under the leadership of Jes, Barclays established a clear strategy, built up a secure capital base, improved its operational resilience and developed its business - leading franchises. We are therefore grateful for the hard work that he put in for the Company.”
“I went and saw him last night. I’ve never seen him so shaken. He also adamantly denies the ages.”
“I miss you, the world is in a tough place. Hang in there.” (2) On12 July 2008 , Mr Staley told Mr Epstein that he had been to see his new boat which would not “be there without your encouragement”, and noted: “18 months until she is anchored in front of St Jeff” (Mr Epstein’s island). He added: “I hope we can talk this week.” (3) On16 July 2008 , Mr Staley wrote: “I hope you’re managing. I miss our calls. Its boring without you around? Do you have any books yet?” (4) On31 July 2008 , Mr Staley wrote to Mr Epstein: “I hope you are hangin in there. Just think of the island and my boat anchored in front. I do.”
“I just remembered, I’m in Miami three time [sic] in January. Can I come visit?”
“I will work with leslie to see you in January, although I may try to get there earlier.”
“Jamie wants me to tell him how much I should make this year, given the expected bank results and my results.To put it in context, my business will be down around 15% this year. What do you think?”
“I'm trying to do two deals at the same time: buy dimensional and sell american century. It's going to be an interesting fall. I will miss stopping by your office for advice.”
“I'm spending a lot of time with Treasury. The Private Bank has brought in$44 billion dollars in the last two weeks. Unreal.”
“I am dealing with the Fed on an idea to solve things. I need a smart friend to help me think through this stuff. Can I get you out for a weekend to help me (are they listening?).”
“So when all hell breaks lose [sic], and the world is crumbling, I will come here, and be at peace. Presently, I’m in the hot tub with a glass of white wine. This is an amazing place. Truly amazing. Next time, we’re here together. I owe you much. And I deeply appreciate our friendship. I have few so profound.”
“Anchored in Christmas cove. Heaven is being on Bequia. Safe travels to Paris. And, as always, thanks for the friendship.”
“I know the time is crazy however Jes staley [sic] is my closest friend please call and host.”
“Terrific. Lots of workers. What a paradise. When I retire, I’m going to put a mooring in front of your dock for my boat”
“Arrived at your harbor. Someday, we have to do this together.”
“Thanks for last night”
“It was fun. And great to see you with so many friends. Tuesday should be interesting.”
“No, that's not right. I have the ability to pass that information on to individuals that I choose but the information “should be handled with discretion.”
“I realize the danger in sending this email. But is was [sic] was great to be able, today, to give you, in New York City, a long heartfelt, [sic] hug. To my friend.”
“We are going to have fun” (2) In February 2010, Mr Staley emailed Mr Epstein stating: “You are a great friend.”
“ditto”. (3) In December 2010, Mr Staley sent Mr Epstein a message on New Year’s Eve, which he also did in a number of other years. In it he stated: “Happy new year. It nice [sic] to have u [sic] free. Much to come. Please know that I am an [sic] friend forever. You are very special. Knowing u [sic], I will toast to the two of us, tomorrow night. Best Jes”
“Told you --- family”
“This is from uncle Jeffrey.”); (ii) commented on Ms Staley’s draft thesis, sent to him by Mr Staley; (iii) arranged for a space for Mr Staley’s daughter at a Physics conference and arranged for a professor at Harvard University to call Ms Staley and “meet up”
“HER FATHER IS A CLOSE FRIEND BANKER JPM.”
“how long london? do you need anything there?”; and in response Mr Staley wrote simply: “Yep.”
“jes staley is staying at the berkeley hotel in London tonight”
“I should have taken your offer”
“you were with larry , and i had to put up with…”.As the Authority submitted, although not indecent, this was not the kind of photograph sent between two individuals whose relationship is strictly professional in nature, even though it was not unknown at this time for emails of this nature to be sent between financial services professionals using their employer’s systems. Mr Staley did not seek to admonish Mr Epstein for sending such material nor did he ignore it. He responded: “Don’t tell me a French wine.”
“always thoughts of alcohol”
“Andrew just sat next to me at dinner…Any word on M? This is fun.”
“Is she free tonight?”
“Maybe they’re tracking u [sic]?? That was fun. Say hi to Snow White”
“what character would you like next”
“well one side is available [sic].”
“I'm here at some ball with Vera. She says u [sic] slept with her!!”
“the maids deal was have sex,,,,leave the money in the room,, he had sex. she left to go clean the other room, when she returned she didn;t [sic] find the money,, went beserk,, ( my new explanation.)”
“I’ve tried calling a few times, even though the service in Bahia is pretty spotty. thanks for all the friendship this year. You were enormously kind and supportive. All looks good for next year. More freedom, more deals, more building, more things we can do together. Say hi to everyone. Happy New Year Jes”
“Why not stay one more day in PB. Then fly Tues morning to Fort Mayers and fly me back Tuesday morning with you.”
“This waiting is agony”, and a few days later asking Mr Epstein: “U [sic]free for a visit around 5?”
“You’re my first client!!”
“But more importantly, I write this because Alexa and I know what you did to allow her to follow her dreams. Thanks J. Best, Jes.”
“You’ve already seen the draft, but it’s nice to finally see it online. Thanks for getting me here.”
“Would not have happened without you.”
“please [save] the date. You need to be there.”
“Alexa and I know you [sic] [how] much of a role you had in arriving at this very big day. The counsel you have given Alexa over the years has been a gift of great friendship. Thanks my friend.”
“i plan on being in florida for the 12 th want to visit for the day?”
“I am wrestling with Deb about RBS, so it might be a good break to figure out what I want to do.”
“Lets talk tomorrow about RBS.”
“what was jamies reaction.?”
“U [sic] free for dinner tomorrow night in NY?”
“Hi Rosa…we have ran [sic] out of the wine Jes likes and unfortunately it is out of stock everywhere (even called the Stephen Vincent winery)…is there perhaps another sauvignon blanc that we could keep on hand for Jes?”
“Are u on the island?” and Mr Epstein responding that he was in Palm Beach, with a phone number.It is to be inferred that the two subsequently spoke, because sometime later Mr Staley sent a follow up email: “The strength of a Greek army was that its core held shoulder to shoulder, and would not flee or break, no matter the threat. That is us.”
“Thanks for the flight and thanks for the lunch. Your place is crazy, and special. It has a warmth and silliness that makes it yours. I count u as a deep friend. The girls seemed to enjoy the sail. All the best. Jes”
“A member of the board just reached out.”
“The CEO wants to meet.”
“SS got hired tonight. It begins.”
“First, I truly enjoyed our meeting the other day. I liked the nature of the exchange and appreciate your willingness to share your thoughts about Barclay's [sic] next steps. Second, I spoke with Axel Weber and told him that you and I had a first meeting. He is comfortable that I still attend the UBS board meeting next week in Hong Kong, and he fully appreciates the need to keep all this very confidential. He went so far as to offer to speak with you at the right time. He was a gentleman through and through.”
“You never wavered in our friendship these last three years. That means a lot too [sic] me. Thanks Jeffery. Cross your toes!!!”
“more than 10 years”
“He writes, what to an Englishman, are extraordinarily affectionate emails to lots of people. I’ve had things like this and I got one over Christmas. You could, I’m sure go through his emails, you would find this sort of intimate and affectionate style, as I say bit odd to an Englishman or woman but that’s the way he writes.”
“I think you just asked me the same question, and I think the answer’s the same, that Jes writes these sorts of incredibly affectionate emails, and as I think I had mentioned in our previous discussions, Jes had made no secret of the fact that he was, you know, felt indebted if that’s the right word, perhaps it isn’t, to Epstein for a number of things to do with his career and, you know, his daughter getting into university. So, I, you know, there’s nothing in these words which would be inconsistent, or trigger any feeling of inconsistency in, in my mind, bearing in mind what I know about that and the way Jes writes.”
“Contact – direct contact is me being in contact with Epstein by email, phone, text et cetera, yes.”
“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.”
“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…”
“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.”
“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.”
“Read down below. Don’t know if you saw this.”
“If asked why Epstein would have had Jes’s number/known him we should simply confirm – on background – that Epstein was a client of JPM’s private bank which Jes ran at one point. They are not friends.” (2) Mr Doherty’s draft email to the board of directors of Barclays on 26 October, which stated, inter alia: “Mr Epstein was a significant client of JPM’s private bank when Jes Staley was CEO of that business and that is how he made his acquaintance. Jes is clear that any relationship with Mr Epstein is not close, and he is unaware of the alleged attempt by Mr Epstein to support his candidacy for CEO in the 2012 process.”
“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…”
“He first met JE around the year 2000 when he (Jes) took over the Private Bank at JPM He was introduced to JE by the then CEO of JPM because JE was at the time a client of the Private Bank, and the CEO felt he was someone Jes should know and forge a strong client relationship with JE proved to be extremely well networked (which tallies with the picture of him in the media) JE liked Jes and began to introduce and recommend clients to JPM’s Private Bank Over the course of circa 7-8 years Jes and JE were professionally close — particularly as JE had this propensity to regularly introduce business to JPM It was a relationship predicated on business, but they were on good personal terms Subsequent to JE’s conviction and incarceration in 2008 such contact that took place between the two of them became infrequent and insubstantive, and then stopped JE was eventually asked to leave JPM’s Private Bank as a client (that’s when he took his business to DB) ——Jes was still in a senior role at JPM when that happened”
“How did Jes originally meet Epstein, and how? He first met JE around the year 2000 follow when he (Jes) was appointed Head of the Private Bank at JPM. He was introduced to JE by the then CEO of JPM because JE was at the time a client of the private bank, and the CEO felt he was someone Jes should know and forge a relationship with […] What was the nature and scope of Jes’s relationship with Epstein, and how long did it extend? Did Jes ever spend time with or travel with him? What can he tell us about Epstein’s private life, either as it overlapped with his professional life or otherwise? Over the course of circa 7-8 years Jes and JE were professionally close – particularly as JE had this propensity to regularly introduce business to JPM. It was a relationship predicated on business, but they were on good terms. Jes has not had any contact at all with JE for several years now, and nor does he intend to do so.”
“Jes, I just have to ask you, because it is unfortunately my job, you just have to tell me, is there anything about you and these girls?”
“He wants to take out the emotion and make it much more factual.”
“Mr Staley was concerned that Mr Doherty would often write in an emotive fashion, but Mr Staley wanted the document to be super clear and stick to the facts.”
“That said, I had limited contact with him [Mr Epstein] post his conviction, which I will describe shortly.”
“ • Thank you for this opportunity to speak to the Committee. I wanted to be here in person because I value so highly my association with Bowdoin, which spans forty-four years of my life, and my reputation, which I strongly believe should not be sullied by my association with JE. • Given my long relationship with JE, and particularly in light of the recent understanding of the enormity of his evil, I understand the questions you may have regarding that relationship, and am here to answer those questions. • Let me be clear from the outset: At no time was I aware of JE’s inappropriate relationship with underage girls prior to the original charge in 2006 and I have never witnessed at any time the allegations made against him. • At no time was I interviewed or subpoenaed to testify as a witness in these investigations. At no time after his conviction in 2008 did I allow JE any connection with any aspect of my professional life. Indeed, I have never had any professional relationship with JE except for his relationship with JP Morgan’s private bank, which began long before I ever met him. That said, I had limited contact with him post his conviction, which I will describe shortly. • At no time in our professional relationship did I arrange to compensate JE for professional introductions he made or for investment advice or for any other form of advice he may have rendered to JP Morgan; nor, to my knowledge, did JP Morgan ever compensate JE. • At no time during my tenure at Blue Mountain capital did I conduct any business with JE. • At no time during my tenure at Barclays have I or the bank conducted any business with JE. • At no time have I involved JE in any aspect of my support for and dedication to Bowdoin College. • Let me take you through the history of my connection to Jeffrey Epstein • I first met him in late 1999 or early 2000 when I took over the Private Bank at JP Morgan • I was introduced to him by the then CEO of JP Morgan because Epstein was at the time a client of the Private Bank, and the CEO felt he was someone I should know and steward as a client. • Epstein proved to be extremely well networked – which tallies with the picture of him in the media – and he began to introduce and recommend clients to me, and in turn to JP Morgan. • Over the next 7 to 8 years he and I became professionally fairly close – predicated on this propensity to introduce business to JP Morgan • As I have mentioned, as far as I know, JE was not paid any fees by JP Morgan for any service ever – including for those introductions that he made. • I never paid Jeffrey Epstein any fees for any service ever, either personally or professionally Subsequent to his conviction and incarceration, I did not personally, or professionally, transact any business with him at all. The business I was then running at JP Morgan – the Investment Bank – did not have Epstein as a client, and nor did he introduce business to the IB during my tenure. Also, I never conducted business with JE while at Blue Mountain Capital or at Barclays • Over the years, I have had meetings with JE that varied in frequency. Pre his 2008 conviction, most of these meetings took place in his office in midtown Manhattan, which he maintained prior to his incarceration. Post his conviction, the meetings took place at the office which he maintained in his home in Manhattan. At no time during these meetings did he reveal or discuss any aspect of the conduct that was the subject of his recent indictment. • After his conviction, I attended roughly 1 dinner per year hosted by Jeffrey – most often with multiple guests. And I have only ever been at a social gathering with him once. • He has never visited my home as a guest. • I have visited his island twice. Once I was with my wife and daughters in transit to a boat. The second time, I stopped off at his island with my wife for a couple of hours in April of 2015 when we were vacationing in the Caribbean and were passing his home. At no time during either visit did I or my family witness any of the conduct for which he was convicted in 2008 or indicted earlier this year. • As has been reported, I visited Epstein during his incarceration on one occasion in 2008/09. That visit took place for under an hour in the office he was using for work release while serving his sentence. Our conversation centred on his experience in jail. • My view at the time was that he had pleaded guilty to a crime and was rightly punished. • He was someone I had known well and I felt it was right to offer him support. • At that time, I had no way of knowing that his conviction in 2008 was not sufficient to encompass the extent of his crimes. To my knowledge, he had been investigated thoroughly, tried and convicted. • In Dec 2015, I assumed my position at Barclays and moved to London. I have not had any contact with him since then. • Of course, with the benefit of hindsight, I wish that I had never had a relationship with Jeffrey, let alone severed it earlier. • In sum, I have thought long and hard about my relationship with JE. I abhor his conduct. I regret that I was unaware of it. But I have not behaved in any way which could be regarded as untoward or improper. • Given the public attention surrounding the JE case, I understand why the Committee felt compelled to hear from me on this matter. I wanted you to hear the truth from me, in person, because I so value my association with this college and the reputation I have built here and during my career for integrity. • I arrived in Brunswick in 1975 and in many ways I have never left. I have contributed countless hours to the college’s welfare. I sent one of my daughters here, and have enthusiastically recommended Bowdoin to numerous friends through the years. • I have served for 12 years now on its Board of Trustees. It has been my pleasure and privilege to do so. • I understand what is at stake here, and let me be clear: To judge my merits to be a Bowdoin trustee based on a limited relationship with an individual completely removed from the college and completely removed from the person I believe myself to be, would be to take guilt by association to a frightening and unwarranted extreme. • The college should judge those who make up its community based on who they are and the values they uphold. The Bowdoin community has known me for forty-four years; the values I have upheld have been the values inculcated in me by my family, my friends, and in no small measure, by my experiences here. • Accordingly, I am gratified that since the articles have been published on my visits to JE, there have been virtually no calls, that I am aware of, for my separation from Bowdoin. There have been, instead, only understandable calls, from some, for me to explain the relationship I had with JE. Now that I have done that, I will take your questions and await your guidance. Thank you.” • Thank you for this opportunity to speak to the Committee. I wanted to be here in person because I value so highly my association with Bowdoin, which spans forty-four years of my life, and my reputation, which I strongly believe should not be sullied by my association with JE. • Given my long relationship with JE, and particularly in light of the recent understanding of the enormity of his evil, I understand the questions you may have regarding that relationship, and am here to answer those questions. • Let me be clear from the outset: At no time was I aware of JE’s inappropriate relationship with underage girls prior to the original charge in 2006 and I have never witnessed at any time the allegations made against him. • At no time was I interviewed or subpoenaed to testify as a witness in these investigations. At no time after his conviction in 2008 did I allow JE any connection with any aspect of my professional life. Indeed, I have never had any professional relationship with JE except for his relationship with JP Morgan’s private bank, which began long before I ever met him. That said, I had limited contact with him post his conviction, which I will describe shortly. • At no time in our professional relationship did I arrange to compensate JE for professional introductions he made or for investment advice or for any other form of advice he may have rendered to JP Morgan; nor, to my knowledge, did JP Morgan ever compensate JE. • At no time during my tenure at Blue Mountain capital did I conduct any business with JE. • At no time during my tenure at Barclays have I or the bank conducted any business with JE. • At no time have I involved JE in any aspect of my support for and dedication to Bowdoin College. • Let me take you through the history of my connection to Jeffrey Epstein • I first met him in late 1999 or early 2000 when I took over the Private Bank at JP Morgan • I was introduced to him by the then CEO of JP Morgan because Epstein was at the time a client of the Private Bank, and the CEO felt he was someone I should know and steward as a client. • Epstein proved to be extremely well networked – which tallies with the picture of him in the media – and he began to introduce and recommend clients to me, and in turn to JP Morgan. • Over the next 7 to 8 years he and I became professionally fairly close – predicated on this propensity to introduce business to JP Morgan • As I have mentioned, as far as I know, JE was not paid any fees by JP Morgan for any service ever – including for those introductions that he made. • I never paid Jeffrey Epstein any fees for any service ever, either personally or professionally Subsequent to his conviction and incarceration, I did not personally, or professionally, transact any business with him at all. The business I was then running at JP Morgan – the Investment Bank – did not have Epstein as a client, and nor did he introduce business to the IB during my tenure. Also, I never conducted business with JE while at Blue Mountain Capital or at Barclays • Over the years, I have had meetings with JE that varied in frequency. Pre his 2008 conviction, most of these meetings took place in his office in midtown Manhattan, which he maintained prior to his incarceration. Post his conviction, the meetings took place at the office which he maintained in his home in Manhattan. At no time during these meetings did he reveal or discuss any aspect of the conduct that was the subject of his recent indictment. • After his conviction, I attended roughly 1 dinner per year hosted by Jeffrey – most often with multiple guests. And I have only ever been at a social gathering with him once. • He has never visited my home as a guest. • I have visited his island twice. Once I was with my wife and daughters in transit to a boat. The second time, I stopped off at his island with my wife for a couple of hours in April of 2015 when we were vacationing in the Caribbean and were passing his home. At no time during either visit did I or my family witness any of the conduct for which he was convicted in 2008 or indicted earlier this year. • As has been reported, I visited Epstein during his incarceration on one occasion in 2008/09. That visit took place for under an hour in the office he was using for work release while serving his sentence. Our conversation centred on his experience in jail. • My view at the time was that he had pleaded guilty to a crime and was rightly punished. • He was someone I had known well and I felt it was right to offer him support. • At that time, I had no way of knowing that his conviction in 2008 was not sufficient to encompass the extent of his crimes. To my knowledge, he had been investigated thoroughly, tried and convicted. • In Dec 2015, I assumed my position at Barclays and moved to London. I have not had any contact with him since then. • Of course, with the benefit of hindsight, I wish that I had never had a relationship with Jeffrey, let alone severed it earlier. • In sum, I have thought long and hard about my relationship with JE. I abhor his conduct. I regret that I was unaware of it. But I have not behaved in any way which could be regarded as untoward or improper. • Given the public attention surrounding the JE case, I understand why the Committee felt compelled to hear from me on this matter. I wanted you to hear the truth from me, in person, because I so value my association with this college and the reputation I have built here and during my career for integrity. • I arrived in Brunswick in 1975 and in many ways I have never left. I have contributed countless hours to the college’s welfare. I sent one of my daughters here, and have enthusiastically recommended Bowdoin to numerous friends through the years. • I have served for 12 years now on its Board of Trustees. It has been my pleasure and privilege to do so. • I understand what is at stake here, and let me be clear: To judge my merits to be a Bowdoin trustee based on a limited relationship with an individual completely removed from the college and completely removed from the person I believe myself to be, would be to take guilt by association to a frightening and unwarranted extreme. • The college should judge those who make up its community based on who they are and the values they uphold. The Bowdoin community has known me for forty-four years; the values I have upheld have been the values inculcated in me by my family, my friends, and in no small measure, by my experiences here. • Accordingly, I am gratified that since the articles have been published on my visits to JE, there have been virtually no calls, that I am aware of, for my separation from Bowdoin. There have been, instead, only understandable calls, from some, for me to explain the relationship I had with JE. Now that I have done that, I will take your questions and await your guidance. Thank you.”
“At no time after his conviction in 2008 did I allow JE any connection with any aspect of my professional life. Indeed, I have never had any professional relationship with JE except for his relationship with JP Morgan’s private bank, which began long before I ever met him. That said, I had limited contact with him post his conviction, which I will describe shortly.”
“Given my long relationship with JE, and particularly in light of the recent understanding of the enormity of his evil, I understand the questions you may have regarding that relationship, and am here to answer those questions.”
“intended to achieve only one purpose, which was to inform the Authority that neither Mr Staley nor Barclays had had any knowledge of or involvement in Mr Epstein’s unlawful conduct. It was not intended to define the relationship between Mr Staley and Mr Epstein…”
“The reason that the original request in August went to Mr Higgins was because he is and was the chair of the board of Barclays. It was the responsibility of Barclays, in our view, to ensure that they had taken into consideration the implications of the information that was coming to light for Mr Staley's position as chief executive and his responsibilities under the senior managers regime, and that is a responsibility that sits with the firm in the first and foremost instance.”
“I think it's -- well, not think, it was both. I was very conscious at the time that in order to understand whether any impropriety had taken place we would need to understand the nature of the relationship, and therefore we wanted to, as a first step -- the steps involved in understanding whether there was a high risk of that were potentially complex, potentially far-reaching and so we decided -- I decided that the first step would be to see what steps the employer had taken, Barclays.” (4) Mr Davidson was then asked whether at any time he made it clear to Mr Higgins that the Authority wanted to have an understanding of the relationship which had existed between Mr Staley and Mr Epstein, to which he replied: “The question that I asked was what steps they had taken as to understand …the relationship and the degree to which there was therefore any risk of impropriety in that relationship.” (5) When challenged directly that he had never asked Barclays what steps it had taken to understand the nature of the relationship, as opposed to the risk of impropriety, Mr Davidson’s response rejecting the suggestion was: “Yes, I did….I asked what steps had he taken to ascertain whether there was any impropriety; in other words, to understand whether I considered, and this is a requirement under the senior managers regime, that reasonable steps had been taken. And reasonable steps, in my view, would have been to ascertain what the relationship was.”
“The question that was put to Jes is the same one that I keep repeating, namely that the FCA was interested to be sure that I was comfortable about the relationship between the two men, which I took to mean is there any way that he could or should have been aware of what was going on with these girls.”
“I had said to him at the conclusion of this conversation -- he had asked me and I distinctly remember this, "Is there anything further you need from me?”
“JD spoke to NH who is currently away on holiday and back in the office next week. NH advised that when the press comments had first emerged JS came to speak with him and stated that there wasn’t any particular relationship between him and JE. NH advised he felt satisfied by that. JD advised that the FCA’s perception is that media reports had intensified around their relationship and asked NH to consider these. JD further asked NH to write to the FCA setting out how they had satisfied themselves there was no impropriety to the relationship.”
“I didn’t say that. I don’t know how I could have said that because there was and we knew it.”
"My takeaway from the call was that I should work with Mr Staley to help him prepare a document that he would send to Mr Higgins and Mr Gillies Mr Crawford Gillies was the senior independent director of Barclays at the time . laying out the facts regarding his relationship with Mr Epstein."
“Jonathan Davidson rang to ask if bd [board] had examined CEOs connection to Epstein. Told him that JS raised with him; discussed history; could we have a note or letter setting out the issues. – Have Matt sit with Jes and get history; reduce note to Crawford.”
“we knew generally that he wanted something to be done such that Mr Higgins could affirm that Barclays had appropriately looked into the matter and were satisfied but how that was to be articulated, what was to be provided to the FCA was not clear and you could imagine, and we’ve seen in these documents, a number of ways in which that could be done.”
“If we want to shorten — do we need last para? I only mention because I’m not sure that this is quite the FCA’s point; I think they are probably more worried about judgement than involvement in wrong-doing.”
“In sum, neither our discussions with Jes nor our review of the bank’s records have revealed any cause to suspect that Barclays or Jes have played any role in the activities of Mr. Epstein that are under investigation.”
“I wondered whether it clearly addressed the question of Mr Staley’s awareness as well as involvement in unlawful conduct. This is what I meant when I said “I’m not sure this is quite the FCA’s point. I think they are probably more worried about judgement than involvement in wrong-doing” ”
“I understand this may not be what Jonathan is looking for, but it creates a nice record that you and Crawford have reasonably looked into this and, based on what you found, concluded that no further inquiry was warranted.”
“I thought that it was important for the record that Mr Higgins show that we had looked, and that we had asked, and that we were comfortable and that we had heard from Mr Staley that he was resolute that he had never seen anything, you know, in connection with – with the crimes that Mr Epstein was charged with.”
“turned back to the request from the FCA, which I thought would begin with a statement from Mr Staley to Mr Higgins. 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.”
“Dear Nigel, In light of recent press attention concerning Jeffrey Epstein, I am writing this note to document for you the history of my connection to Epstein.”
“I am writing to close the loop on your request for assurance that we have informed ourselves and are comfortable in regard to any association of Jes Staley or Barclays with Jeffrey Epstein.”
“I believed that the purpose of the letter was to respond to the oral enquiry made by the FCA, in August 2019, which was to obtain confirmation from Barclays that it was satisfied that I neither had knowledge of, nor had been involved in the criminal activities which had been alleged against Mr Epstein, following his arrest on6 July 2019 .” “Our conversation [between Mr Staley and Mr Gillies] concerned the FCA’s request which he was already aware of and which was, “did I participate in these alleged activities of Epstein and was Barclays aware?” “The letter had a single objective as far as I was concerned and that was to convey to the FCA that I was not aware, and Barclays was not aware, of what Mr Epstein was alleged to have been doing. I am entirely satisfied and believe that that single objective was shared by Mr Hoyt and by Mr Higgins.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“I did occasionally meet with Epstein after his release.”
“Dear Jonathan, I am writing to close the loop on your request for assurance that we have informed ourselves and are comfortable in regard to any association of Jes Staley or Barclays with Jeffrey Epstein. I can now report that Crawford Gillies, Bob Hoyt and I have had conversations with Jes where he has walked us through the history of his interactions with Mr. Epstein. Jes has assured us that since Mr. Epstein’s release from prison, he had only occasional meetings with him. Jes is resolute that a no time did he see anything that would have suggested or revealed any aspect of the conduct that has been the subject of recent allegations. Jes’ last contact with Mr. Epstein was in 2015. Jes has told us that he has not been interviewed or subpoenaed in any of the investigations or other legal matters involving Mr. Epstein. Separately, Barclays’ Financial Crime team has conducted a thorough review of our records, which did not reveal any client or customer relationship with Mr. Epstein or his known affiliates. In sum, neither our discussions with Jes nor our review of the bank’s records have revealed any cause to suspect that Barclays or Jes have played any role in the activities of Mr. Epstein that are under investigation. I trust this addresses your questions.”
“Jes has assured us that since Mr. Epstein’s release from prison, he had only occasional meetings with him.”
“Here is a new draft letter along the lines of what we discussed last night. I shortened it from the earlier version, although it could be shortened even further if you wish. Once you have a draft that you are satisfied with, I recommend showing it to Jes to ensure that he thinks it fairly describes what he has told us. He was comfortable with the earlier draft, so this should be straightforward.”
“Dear Jonathan, I am writing to close the loop on your request for assurance that we have informed ourselves and are comfortable in regard to any association of Jes Staley or Barclays with Jeffrey Epstein. I can now report that Crawford Gillies, Bob Hoyt and I have had conversations with Jes where he has described his interactions with Mr. Epstein. Jes has confirmed to us that he did not have a close relationship with Mr. Epstein, and he is resolute that at no time did he see anything that would have suggested or revealed any aspect of the conduct that has been the subject of recent allegations. Jes’ last contact with Mr. Epstein was before he joined Barclays in 2015. Separately, Barclays’ Financial Crime team has conducted a thorough review of our records, which did not reveal any client or customer relationship with Mr. Epstein. In sum, neither our discussions with Jes nor our review of the bank’s records have revealed any cause to suspect that Barclays or Jes have played any role in the activities of Mr. Epstein that are under investigation. I trust this addresses your questions.”
“Ok. Will you share with Jes and I’ll sign next week?”
“Jes, Please have a look at the attached draft letter. It is only slightly revised from the draft I showed you last week, but we want to be sure you feel that the language is fair and accurate. Based on a discussion between Nigel and Jonathan on Friday, we think this will meet the FCA’s needs. If you have any questions or suggested edits please let us know. Jonathan will be expecting the letter this week.”
“Had my colleagues at Barclays and I been aware of all of the information of which I am now aware, I am sure that we would have questioned Mr Staley about that further information in depth. At this distance, and without the benefit of discussing this information with Mr Staley and other colleagues, I cannot be certain what we would have concluded. However, based on the information of which I am now aware (albeit without having had the chance to test it with Mr Staley) it is likely that we would have taken a different approach to responding to Mr Davidson’s question.”
“It may well have resulted in a different letter, or no letter or a discussion with the Authority”
“One example of a lack of integrity not involving dishonesty is recklessness as to the truth of statements made to others who will or may rely on them or wilful disregard of information contradicting the truth of such statements.”
“Jes has confirmed to us that he did not have a close relationship with Mr. Epstein, and he is resolute that at no time did he see anything that would have suggested or revealed any aspect of the conduct that has been the subject of recent allegations.”
“This approach reflects the FCA's view that an individual receives remuneration commensurate with his responsibilities, and so it is reasonable to base the amount of penalty for failure to discharge his duties properly on his remuneration. The FCA also believes that the extent of the financial benefit earned by an individual is relevant in terms of the size of the financial penalty necessary to act as a credible deterrent. The FCA recognises that in some cases an individual may be approved for only a small part of the work he carries out on a day-to-day basis. However, in these circumstances the FCA still considers it appropriate to base the relevant income figure on all of the benefit that an individual gains from the relevant employment, even if their employment is not totally related to a controlled function.”
“The phrase “financial benefit” should not be construed in an overly legalistic fashion. The policy should not be construed in the same way as a statutory provision and should be capable of being applied flexibly, depending on the facts. Therefore, for instance, in a case where the firm is legally entitled to receive the full amount of the income it derives from the misconduct in question in circumstances where it is obliged to meet certain expenses out of the amount received, the fact that it had a legal entitlement to the whole amount should not be decisive as to the amount of the financial benefit. Whether the “financial benefit” is the gross amount, or a lesser amount to take account of expenses, needs to be considered on a case-by-case basis.”