Overview
Jes Staley served as head of JPMorgan’s private banking division and later as its investment bank CEO before becoming CEO of Barclays. His relationship with Jeffrey Epstein — documented in thousands of emails exchanged between 2008 and 2012 — became central to civil litigation against JPMorgan following Epstein’s death.
JPMorgan’s Private Banking Relationship
JPMorgan maintained Epstein as a private banking client from 2003 to 2013. Staley, who ran the private bank for part of that period, was one of the relationship’s internal champions. Emails disclosed in civil litigation showed Staley advocating for maintaining the Epstein relationship despite concerns raised internally about reputational risk.
The emails included correspondence the USVI government characterized as indicating Staley was aware of Epstein’s conduct with young women. Some of the email content was suggestive of a personal relationship that went beyond a normal banker-client dynamic.
USVI Lawsuit Disclosures
When the USVI government sued JPMorgan in 2022, disclosures from internal emails became a focus of the litigation. Staley was identified as a key figure whose advocacy had helped keep Epstein’s account open after his 2008 conviction.
JPMorgan eventually sued Staley personally, seeking indemnification for some portion of its $290 million settlement on the grounds that Staley had concealed information about Epstein’s conduct from the bank. Staley denied this characterization.
Barclays and UK Regulator Investigation
Staley left JPMorgan in 2013 and eventually became CEO of Barclays in 2015. In 2021, Barclays disclosed that the UK Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) was investigating Staley’s characterization of his relationship with Epstein in response to FCA inquiries. Staley had reportedly described his relationship with Epstein as professional; the FCA was examining whether this was accurate.
Staley resigned from Barclays in November 2021 citing the ongoing FCA investigation. The FCA ultimately found that Staley had mischaracterized the relationship and imposed sanctions.
Significance
The Staley case illustrates how Epstein’s institutional access was maintained not by anonymous bureaucratic inertia but by specific, identifiable individuals who used their influence to protect the relationship. It also demonstrates how information compartmentalization at banks allowed executives to maintain personal relationships that contradicted institutional compliance requirements.
Sources
Civil litigation filings (USVI v. JPMorgan), FCA enforcement records, public reporting by the Financial Times and New York Times, and JPMorgan’s own civil action against Staley.