Warren-Garcia bill would put Wall Street executives' Epstein ties under Fed and SEC investigation

The bill names firms and executives as targets, and Barclays' reply to Warren shows how far apart the two can sit. The reply came from Lance Williams, the bank's head of US government relations ^[7]. Williams wrote that Staley had "concealed information about his actions and the nature of his relationship with Mr Epstein" ^[12]. He also noted that Barclays had relied on external executive search firms to recruit Staley in 2015 ^[13].

The regulatory record gives Barclays partial support. The Financial Conduct Authority's investigation was triggered by more than 1,200 emails between Staley and Epstein, and it concluded the pair were "indeed close" with a relationship that "went beyond one that was professional in nature" ^[9]. Barclays says "previously unknown information" came to light only after Staley resigned ^[14]. We think that can be true of the nature of the relationship while a board's checks still missed an acquaintance that old: Staley met Epstein in 2000 ^[8], 15 years before Barclays hired him ^[16].

Warren and Representative Robert Garcia are introducing the bill on Thursday ^[1]. Warren said the big banks would not hold themselves accountable and the Trump administration would not either, so "Congress must act to force real transparency and accountability for them and their executives who enabled Jeffrey Epstein's crimes" ^[5]. The Guardian's report does not say how the bill defines "Epstein connected" or whether any committee has scheduled it.

Until it passes, no firm faces an inquiry under it ^[2]. We think a review of executive files costs less this quarter than the same questions would cost under an inquiry, where the penalties are fines or bans from the US financial sector ^[2].