Jes Staley told a British court, under oath, that Jeffrey Epstein asked him to serve as a trustee of his estate — and that he refused.

"I turned it down," Staley testified in March 2025, according to Times Now News. He even used the refusal as evidence he wasn't Epstein's close personal friend.

The U.S. Department of Justice, as part of a sweeping release of Epstein-related files, published a 23-page trust agreement dated November 2014. It lists Staley as one of three trustees of the Jeffrey E. Epstein 2014 Trust. His signature appears on the document alongside Epstein's, according to Times Now News. A separate amendment to the same trust, also bearing what appears to be Staley's signature, is dated September 29, 2015 — months after he joined Barclays.

Trustees were set to receive $250,000 per year under the terms of the agreement. No evidence has surfaced showing whether Staley actually collected that money.

What Staley Told Regulators

This isn't just a he-said-they-said situation. The UK's Financial Conduct Authority already banned Staley for life from senior finance roles in Britain, after concluding he misled them about his relationship with Epstein.

The FCA launched its investigation after receiving a cache of 1,200 emails from JPMorgan — Staley's former employer. Those emails led regulators to conclude that Staley and Epstein were "indeed close" and had a relationship that "went beyond one that was professional in nature," according to The Guardian.

Barclays had written to the FCA in October 2019 claiming Staley "did not have a close relationship" with Epstein and that his last contact was "well before" he joined the bank in 2015. The FCA didn't buy it. The courts upheld the ban.

Now the trust documents suggest his sworn March 2025 testimony may have been false.

Congress Is Next

Staley has agreed to a voluntary transcribed interview with the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on July 23, according to CNBC. The Financial Times first reported his acceptance of the invitation, which was extended three weeks ago by Oversight Chairman Rep. James Comer, R-Ky.

The committee has already interviewed former President Bill Clinton, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, and Attorney General Pam Bondi — who was grilled Friday about the DOJ's handling of Epstein file releases. Also on the schedule: Bill Gates on June 10, billionaire Leon Black on June 26, and Goldman Sachs general counsel Kathryn Ruemmler on July 15, per CNBC.

JPMorgan Already Paid. Now Barclays Faces the Lawsuit.

The financial consequences keep stacking up. JPMorgan — where Staley ran private wealth and asset management while Epstein was a major client — already paid $290 million to Epstein's victims in 2023 to settle a sex trafficking facilitation lawsuit. The same year, the bank paid another $75 million to settle a suit brought by the U.S. Virgin Islands government, according to CNBC. JPMorgan also reached a confidential settlement with Staley directly over who bore responsibility for those damages.

Now Barclays is in the crosshairs. A class action lawsuit led by pension funds from New York and Missouri alleges Barclays, its chair Nigel Higgins, and Staley repeatedly misled investors about Staley's Epstein ties in order to protect the bank's reputation and share price, according to The Guardian. A Los Angeles judge denied Staley's request to dismiss the case — meaning it moves forward.

The plaintiffs say the deception started in July 2019, just weeks after Epstein was arrested on child sex trafficking charges, and continued even after the FCA investigation was underway.

Perjury Questions

Signing a trust agreement and then swearing under oath you declined to be a trustee is a direct conflict between a legal document bearing your signature and sworn testimony in court.

The DOJ released these documents as part of a broader Epstein file dump. The story centers on what was in it and whether anyone in power is actually going to act on it.

Congress interviewing Staley on July 23 will show whether the contradictions lead to any accountability — or if it becomes another conversation that goes nowhere.