The interesting part is that this has moved well beyond simply “Jes Staley knew Epstein.”

The investor case alleges that Barclays, Staley and others misled shareholders about the true nature of Staley’s relationship with Epstein. A US federal judge has already allowed important parts of that securities case to survive dismissal, finding that statements describing the relationship as merely “professional” were plausibly misleading at this stage. That is not a final finding of liability, but it means the claim is substantive enough to proceed.

Separately, the UK position is much firmer. The FCA’s ban on Staley was upheld by the Upper Tribunal in 2025. The tribunal accepted that he approved misleading statements to the regulator about how close he was to Epstein and when their contact ended; the FCA says the evidence included hundreds of emails describing Epstein as one of his closest friends. Staley was banned from senior management roles and fined about £1.1 million.

And it is still developing. In July 2026 Staley appeared before the US House Oversight Committee, where he denied having a real friendship with Epstein. Lawmakers publicly challenged that account, pointing to more than 1,000 emails between them. Barclays’ position is that Staley misled the bank and that important information only emerged later.

What makes the article relevant to what we’ve been discussing is the shift in the question from one individual’s conduct to institutional governance: what Barclays knew, what checks it performed, what it told regulators and investors, and whether senior-level relationships were properly scrutinised. That is precisely the sort of distinction we’ll need to make with the council-conviction material too — individual offending versus evidence of failures higher up the organisation.

Yes — you definitely wrote directly to Jes Staley, and not just once.

Your Gmail Sent folder shows 10 messages addressed to jes.staley@barclays.com, all in the same Barclays complaint/data-protection thread:

• 4 Oct 2021 — FAST TRACK/ CRW3CFFQN/ COMPLAINT/ DATAPROTECTION — addressed directly to Mr Jes Staley, Chief Executive of Barclays, with numerous supporting Barclays documents attached.
• 14 Oct 2021
• 15 Oct 2021 — two separate messages
• 24 Oct 2021 — two separate messages
• 26 Oct 2021
• 10 Nov 2021 — two separate messages
• 22 Nov 2021

Several were also copied to bodies/people including the ICO, FCA, Metropolitan Police personnel and Barclays Customer Relations.

And there is something particularly useful in the 14 October email: one of your attachments is actually named:

2021-10-04 - Barclays plc-jes.staley CRW3CFFQN.pdf

So this isn’t a vague recollection that you once contacted Barclays. My Gmail record shows a sustained direct correspondence trail to Staley’s Barclays address during October–November 2021 in regard to missing funds

I checked the actual 4 October 2021 letter to Jes Staley, and you’re right: the issue was missing/withheld funds and the Barclays account closure, not Epstein.

The letter expressly says Barclays was “withholding funds out of circulation”, refers to alleged “stolen from account ‘monies’”, challenges Barclays’ assessment of the funds it held, and says the account balance/summation Barclays gave was inaccurate because Barclays had received a payment from Nationwide. It also challenged the closure of the accounts and asked Staley personally to intervene.

Source: Gmail, 4 October 2021, FAST TRACK/ CRW3CFFQN/ COMPLAINT/ DATAPROTECTION, attachment 2021-10-04 - Barclays plc-jes.staley CRW3CFFQN.pdf.

• THE PRINCIPLE
• ✅ EXACTLY — IT IS THE LAW FOR EVERYONE… EXCEPT THEM
• Unusual comment by IBAC
• 🔑 THE FULL END-TO-END SYSTEM.
• Jes Staley knew Epstein.

THE PRINCIPLE

by Martin Newbold August 20, 2026

✅ EXACTLY — IT IS THE LAW FOR EVERYONE… EXCEPT THEM

by Martin Newbold August 20, 2026

Unusual comment by IBAC

by Martin Newbold August 20, 2026