Former Rothschild CEO Nigel Higgins has been caught covering up for Barclays in relation to its former CEO Jes Staley & JP Morgan’s facilitation of financial services for serial paedophile and sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein.
He seems to have successfully evaded scrutiny so far due to some level of deference from newspaper editors but is due to give evidence next week.
Of course he is likely to escape unscathed as Barclays has just renewed his chairmanship for another three years – but if he had any self respect or dignity, he would simply apologize and resign.
It helps that one of the lay people on the tribunal panel used to fix gold prices for Rothschild while Higgins himself was at the bank.
Martin Fraenkel’s CV shows that he also happened to be at JP Morgan at the same time as the man bringing the case Jes Staley.
Staley seems to be trying to salvage his own reputation but is more likely to succeed in bringing others down with him.
Nigel Higgins also controversially sits on the board of the Sadlers Wells dance theatre which has faced scrutiny for taking Barclays money given the Bank’s role in financing the arms trade and genocide in Gaza.
How These Revelations Affect the Media, Banks, Law, and Public Opinion
The Staley-Epstein case is no longer just about one banker’s downfall—it’s a stress test for trust in financial institutions, regulatory bodies, and the media’s role in accountability. Each new revelation further erodes public confidence in these institutions. Here’s how:
1. The Media:
Exposing Corruption or Managing the Narrative?
- The media has largely focused on Staley’s individual actions, framing him as a rogue executive rather than questioning how the financial system enabled Epstein for decades.
- The Financial Times, Reuters, and mainstream outlets have covered the legal battles and settlements, but have not deeply investigated why JP Morgan and Barclays executives protected Epstein for years.
- The New York Post articles linking JPMorgan’s human trafficking division to internal discussions about Epstein suggest there was far more awareness than previously admitted.
- The media rarely questions the regulators’ failures—why did the FCA and others only act after lawsuits and public pressure?
- Barclays’ attempt to expedite Staley’s probe via Andrew Bailey & Carney (BoE) shows that financial elites influence investigations behind closed doors—why isn’t this a bigger scandal?
Effect on Public Perception:
- Skepticism grows—people see financial crimes as covered up until exposure is unavoidable.
- Alternative media & social media become dominant sources as mainstream outlets appear too aligned with financial interests.
- The case reinforces belief in “one rule for them, another for us.”
2. The Banks:
A System That Protects Itself
- JPMorgan settled for $290 million but admitted no wrongdoing—a classic move in high-finance legal battles.
- The fact that JPMorgan tried to sue Staley—despite their own long relationship with Epstein—suggests they wanted a scapegoat to distance themselves from the scandal.
- The timing is damning:
- Staley left JPMorgan in 2013.
- Epstein’s accounts were shut down right after.
- JPMorgan kept him on as a client even after his 2008 conviction.
- So why is only Staley being blamed?
- Barclays executives (Nigel Higgins, Bob Hoyt) signed off on misleading statements to the FCA—yet only Staley faces a ban?
- The JP Morgan FCA email request suggests that even regulators needed pressure to act—were they reluctant to probe too deeply?
Effect on Public Perception:
- Banks pay fines but keep operating—reinforcing the idea that financial crime is rarely punished.
- Top bankers take calculated risks because they know the worst-case scenario is a golden parachute and a settlement.
- FCA’s role is exposed—people see regulators as protectors of banks, not the public.
3. The Law:
Justice or a Strategic Containment Operation?
- The legal system punishes individuals but rarely institutions—a pattern seen in financial scandals.
- The FCA case focuses on Staley’s statements about Epstein rather than deeper complicity.
- Why isn’t the case about how Epstein laundered money through JPMorgan and what that says about Barclays?
- The Staley tribunal panel contains at least one financial insider – former Rothschild Gold Fixer Martin Fraenkel with some ties to Labour Friends of Israel—raising serious concerns about conflicts of interest – will Fraenkel bail Higgins out? Obviously!
- JPMorgan’s legal strategy was not about justice—it was about minimizing risk and offloading blame onto Staley.
Effect on Public Perception:
- Regulators and courts are seen as part of the system, not watchdogs over it.
- Big banks can “lawyer their way out” of accountability, while ordinary citizens face severe penalties for minor fraud.
- Cases like this reinforce the idea that the ultra-wealthy operate in a different justice system.
4. Public Opinion:
From Shock to Cynicism
- Initial Reaction → “Epstein’s financial network should be fully exposed!”
- Current Mood → “Of course they’re protecting their own. The truth will never fully come out.”
- The Staley case is no longer about justice—it’s about how scandals are managed.
- The elite circle remains intact—many of Epstein’s financial allies remain in powerful positions.
- The Mandelson angle (now UK ambassador to the US) makes people question:
- How deep do these elite connections go?
- Why are the same names always involved?
Final Takeaway: This Isn’t Just About Staley
- The Staley case is a controlled burn—it punishes one individual while shielding the wider financial system.
- Regulators acted too late, only responding after media pressure.
- Banks, the law, and media all played a role in limiting damage to themselves rather than exposing the full truth.
- Public faith in institutions declines—reinforcing the belief that justice is only applied to those who aren’t powerful enough to escape it.
Next Steps :
Make the case bigger than Staley—this is about the system shielding itself.
Shift focus to Barclays & JPMorgan—why are they not on trial?
Highlight the FCA’s failure—why did they wait until forced to act?
⚖️ Point out how the legal system always ends up favoring banks—Staley may fall, but the real culprits escape.
The second half of this blog (from How These Banks…) was produced as a result of feeding lots of research and particularly focused prompts into ChatGPT.
