FCA to fine Barclays boss Staley over whistleblowing conduct

The regulators say Staley's attempt to unmask the whistleblower mean he failed to act with due skill, care and diligence, breaching conduct rules, and have proposed that he pay a financial penalty which industry experts predict could run into seven figures.

Barclays stressed in a statement that the FCA and PRA are "not alleging that he acted with a lack of integrity or that he lacks fitness and propriety to continue to perform his role as Group Chief Executive Officer".

Barclays added that its Board is satisfied with the regulators' conclusions and continues to "have unanimous confidence in Mr Staley", recommending his re-election as a Director at the Barclays Annual General Meeting on 1 May.

The FCA and PRA will not take enforcement action against Barclays but the Bank will be required to report on certain aspects of its whistleblowing programme.

Commenting, the Chartered Institute for Securities & Investment said that "important lessons need to be learned" following the FCA’s findings.

Rebecca Aston, head of professional standards at the CISI, said: “The result – a fine (amount as-yet undisclosed, but one that could easily run into seven figures) – could be seen as rather anti-climactic, particularly considering the amount of time the investigation has taken, but there are reasons why this sanction represents a significant move forward in whistleblower protection.

“This is the first time the FCA have imposed a fine on a sitting Chief Executive – so this finding will have senior leaders of other UK banks taking notice and dusting off their firm’s whistleblowing policies. It also sends a clear message that training on whistleblowing policies within financial services organisations is essential, even (or especially) in the board room.

“Finally, this finding demonstrates that the FCA are prepared to take steps to protect the sanctity of a report by any whistleblower – even if the concern they raised is not upheld.

“There are lessons to be learned from this experience by the FCA, Barclays and financial services firms in general. Notably, the length of time taken for this investigation may be a cause for concern for future whistleblowers. A year for this type of investigation feels excessive, and in this case seemed to increase expectations that more severe action would be taken.

What assurances can the FCA offer those working in financial services that it will not take so long to reach a finding if another attempt is made to unmask a whistleblower in the future?"