US senator Elizabeth Warren has called for urgent answers from Barclays over what she described as its “apparent failure to meaningfully investigate” the ties between the bank’s former chief executive, Jes Staley, and the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. In a private letter to Barclays chair Nigel Higgins, seen by , Warren said it was “deeply unclear how, supposedly investigating Staley’s connection to Epstein, failed to uncover this decades-long relationship”.
The letter was also sent on behalf of the Congress members Ro Khanna and Raja Krishnamoorthi. It gave Barclays two weeks to answer a series of questions about how it handled information on the links between Staley and Epstein, who died while awaiting trial on child sex trafficking charges in 2019.
The lawmakers asked whether the bank had carried out any reviews into “deficiencies” in its executive hiring process, which had “allowed the board to hire a CEO who held extensive professional and personal ties to a convicted sex offender”. They also raised concerns arising from a UK case in which Staley unsuccessfully tried to stop regulators from banning him from the British banking industry, four years after he was forced to step down as Barclays boss.
Those concerns included Higgins’s admission that he had not asked Staley about his relationship with Epstein before Higgins’s declaration to the Financial Conduct Authority that the last contact had been “well before” the CEO joined Barclays.
“It appears that neither you nor any other member of the board conducted any deeper due diligence to verify Staley’s claims and simply took him at his word,”
The letter continued:
“It is unclear what specific actions, if any, Barclays took to investigate Staley and Epstein’s personal ties.”
The US lawmakers said the episode raised wider questions about how the bank was managed.
“Barclays’s apparent failure to meaningfully investigate or address Staley’s relationship with Epstein raises significant governance questions regarding the bank’s ability to hold senior executives accountable for wrongdoing,”
They also warned that it was a “privilege” to hold local banking licences and operate in the US, where Barclays had “extensive” operations and held about $200bn (£150bn) in assets. That privilege, they said, “is contingent on the ongoing character and fitness of management and the ability of the firm to conduct its operations in a safe and sound manner”.
The letter was sent hours before Staley was due to be grilled in a closed-doors hearing by the House Oversight Committee, on which Khanna and Krishnamoorthi both sit. The lawmakers’ intervention added new pressure on Barclays as questions continued over what the bank knew about Staley’s links to Epstein and how it handled them.
Staley originally met Epstein in 2000 after he became head of JP Morgan’s private bank, where Epstein was a client. He later became chief executive of Barclays in 2015, but was forced to step down in 2021 after City regulators launched an investigation into the nature of the relationship between the two men.
He was eventually banned from taking any job in the UK’s financial sector for playing down those ties, which Barclays vouched for in its letter to the Financial Conduct Authority in 2019.
In Staley’s failed attempt last year to overturn his banking ban, the court battle revealed intimate details of the men’s friendship. Staley also lost out on £18m worth of pay and bonuses from Barclays as a result of the ruling.
A spokesperson for Barclays said:
“The UK regulator concluded that Barclays was misled by . We conducted an investigation based on the information that was available to us at the time.
The spokesperson added:
“Since then, new information has emerged that was not available to Barclays that demonstrates Mr Staley misled Barclays and many others as to the nature of the relationship with Epstein. That information relates to activities that predated his employment at Barclays.”
Barclays did not provide further comment in the statement, and the letter from Warren, Khanna and Krishnamoorthi set a two-week deadline for answers on the bank’s handling of the issue.
How did the Barclays questions arise?
The questions were prompted by concerns that the bank had not properly investigated Staley’s ties to Epstein before defending him to regulators. Warren said it was unclear how a review of Staley’s connection to Epstein could have failed to uncover what she described as a decades-long relationship.
Among the issues raised was whether Barclays had examined any weaknesses in its executive hiring process after the board appointed a CEO who had extensive professional and personal ties to a convicted sex offender.
What did the lawmakers say about governance?
Warren, Khanna and Krishnamoorthi said the case raised significant governance questions about Barclays’s ability to hold senior executives accountable for wrongdoing. They argued that the handling of Staley’s relationship with Epstein could affect confidence in the bank’s management and in the way it assesses senior leaders.
They also emphasised the importance of the US market, noting Barclays’s extensive operations there and its approximately $200bn (£150bn) in assets. The lawmakers said operating in the US and holding local banking licences is a privilege that depends on management being fit and on the firm running its business in a safe and sound manner.
What is the background to Staley’s relationship with Epstein?
Staley met Epstein in 2000 after becoming head of JP Morgan’s private bank, where Epstein was a client. He later moved to Barclays and became chief executive in 2015. His departure in 2021 followed a City investigation into the relationship, and he was later banned from the UK financial sector for downplaying those ties.
The disclosure battle over his ban led to a failed court challenge last year, which exposed more details about the friendship between Staley and Epstein. The case also cost Staley £18m in pay and bonuses from Barclays.
What did Barclays say in response?
Barclays said the UK regulator concluded that the bank had been misled by Staley and that it had carried out an investigation using the information available at the time. The bank said newer information later emerged that had not been available to Barclays and showed Mr Staley had misled Barclays and others about the nature of the relationship with Epstein.
The bank added that the information related to activities that took place before Staley joined Barclays.
