The UK's conduct and prudential regulators have now concluded their investigations regarding Jes Staley, the group CEO of Barclays Bank, in relation to his attempt to identify the author of an anonymous letter in 2016.

The Financial Conduct Authority and Prudential Regulation Authority have recently issued confidential draft warning notices that set out their reasons for proposing to punish Staley. Both regulators allege that Staley's actions in relation to this matter represented a breach of individual conduct rule 2 (a requirement to act with due skill, care and diligence, found in COCON 2.1 of the FCA's rulebook) and each want him to pay a financial penalty, to be determined later. The FCA and PRA are not alleging that he acted with a lack of integrity or that he lacks the requisite fitness and propriety to do his job. Various commentators in the press are critical of them not doing so, complaining that they have thrown away a golden opportunity to protect 'whistleblowers.' Staley's attempts to expose the informant, they suggested, could have led the regulators to find him in breach of COCON 2.1.1, which requires CEOs and others to act with integrity. If they had done this, he would have had to resign, subject to a possible appeal to the Upper Tribunal.

In accordance with the enforcement procedures of the FCA and PRA, Staley now has some time to mull over the draft warning notices and decide whether to raise any concerns with the regulators. Barclays therefore says that it is not in a position to comment further on the draft warning notices, any discussions with the FCA and PRA or the timing of the final outcome of this matter.

The Barclays board says that it is still satisfied with its conclusions as set out in its cryptic announcement last April, when the affair came to light. It professes "unanimous confidence" in Staley and continues to recommend his re-election as a director at the Barclays Annual General Meeting on 1 May. As it said in April, the board will decide on any adjustment it might want to make to Staley's pay when the regulators have finished with him.

Barclays Bank has escaped regulatory opprobrium altogether. The regulators are, however, proposing to require Barclays Bank plc and Barclays Bank UK plc to report to them about certain aspects of their "whistleblowing programmes." In May, in response to bad publicity, the board of Barclays embarked on an internal overhaul of its policy towards informants, making some reforms along the way. Barclays is still helping American regulators with their inquiries.

In October 2015, the FCA began to require banks and insurers to introduce "whistleblowing procedures" internally. This included the introduction of a "whistleblower’s champion" at a senior level at every firm. It is not known who the champion at Barclays is, or what he had to say when Staley tried to unmask the informant. In policy statement PS15.24 the FCA said: "We think firms should always be prepared to receive anonymous disclosures, if this is what the whistleblower wants, although firms may choose to discuss with whistleblowers the advantages of disclosing their identity."

In the systems and controls module (SYSC) of the FCA rulebook, rule 18.3.1R (2) says that a firm's arrangements to protect telltales must "be able effectively to handle disclosures of reportable concerns including where the whistleblower has requested confidentiality or has chosen not to reveal their identity; and allowing for disclosures to be made through a range of communication methods." A reportable concern is any concern held by any person in relation to the activities of a firm, including breaches of the rules or of the firm’s policies and procedures, or any behaviour that is likely to harm the reputation or financial well-being of the firm.