Unlock Editor Digest for FREE
Roela Khalaf, Ft Editor, selects his favorite stories in this weekly newsletter.
The legal team of Jesl Staley says that bosses of ex-barclays are subjected to “lower public” after he is being asked to a sexual employee in an apartment in New York.
Staley, 68, speaks of a London tribunal this week in an apartment that is owned by the latter brothers, after the lawyers who conducted for the authority asked him about it.
Robert Smith KC, representing Staley, said Thursday the legal banker team is “worried” by FCA.
The American Banker has taken the case to try to break 2023 restrictions and fances imposed on him by the FCA because of the alleged barks to mislead the regulator in his relationship with Epstein.
The FCA highlights the entire settlements that it “did not seek to humiliate” Staley and not accused of hostility or knowledge of Epstein’s criminality.
Guardian owners make up his relationship with his epstein, and insufficient candidate for regulators.
Smith’s intervention was a day after the court was told about the New York Apartment incident, mentioned in a deposision associated with the separation of US methods.
The FCA advice, Leigh-Ann Mulcahy KC, Staley asked Wednesday, “you accept, that you have sex with Epstein’s brother… Where did he respond to” yes “.
The court heard that Staley says the deposit he didn’t know it’s an apartment to Epstein’s brother in time but now.
Staley told the court on Wednesday that Epstein didn’t know about meeting even if it was with his staff.
“How was it after you had sex with a woman who worked for him in an apartment that his brother owned that he didn’t know about it?” Mulcahy asked.
Staley replied that he and the woman met while he was waiting for Epstein on some occasions and “many of my shame today, we had an encounter”.
Smith said on Thursday “The Public Public to Mr Staley on this matter hit the press”, adding that the FCA “should have realized”.
“Damage done if this question was asked,” Smith said.
But Mulcahy told the tribunal he faced the question “fair and sensitive as I could”.
He said there was “no deal” that the item could be “attention to private”. “We rejected the suggestion that it was made without notice,” he said.
Mulcahy told him that he did not seek to attack his privacy but to build connections between him and the Epstein, given that he had a close relationship.
