The Guardian reports this morning that:
Barclays’ chief executive, Jes Staley, is facing a financial penalty for an alleged breach of conduct after City watchdogs completed an investigation into the banking boss’s attempts to identify a whistleblower in 2016.
Barclays said the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) are alleging that Staley’s actions were a breach of an individual conduct rule that relates to a “requirement to act with due skill, care and diligence”. The size of the penalty has not been disclosed.
That fine should have been disclosed. But more important is this note that followed:
The bank stressed, however, that regulators are not alleging that he acted with a lack of integrity or that he lacks fitness and propriety to continue in his role as chief executive.
Ask yourself this: could you explain the fact that the CEO has been fined for a breach of the rules concerning individual conduct that clearly related to a matter of personal self-interest and then suggest that he did not lack integrity to a class of 11-year-olds? If you can, then Barclays’ claim stacks. All I can say is that I could not do that with any credibility. And I can tell you, they would not believe you if you tried.
This is from the man who insisted the Crystal Methodist was just fine to run a bank, indeed that the entire management structure had no banking qualifications or training was just peachy.