On 9 December 2009, Chancellor Alistair Darling unveiled a one-off 50% tax on bankers’ bonuses. New documents from the Epstein Files reveal that a serving cabinet minister privately advised JPMorgan on how to fight back. Peter Mandelson, then Business Secretary, counselled Jamie Dimon on how to threaten the Government into softening the tax. Those exchanges were channelled through Jeffrey Epstein.
We worked on this story with the Financial Times.
The lobbying
On 15 December, Mr Epstein asked Mr Mandelson if the bank payroll tax could be amended so it applied only to cash bonuses (not the, much more valuable, non-cash elements such as share options). Mr Mandelson replied that he’d explained to Jes Staley (then a senior JPM executive, with close links to Epstein) that he was trying hard to amend the tax. Mr Epstein said Mr Mandelson should let Epstein know of any result before Mr Mandelson spoke to Mr Staley:
![Email thread between Jeffrey Epstein and Peter Mandelson dated 15 December 2009: To: Jeffrey Epstein[jeevacation@gmail.com]
From: [redacted]
Sent: Tue 12/15/2009 12:19:47 PM
Subject: Re:
They are v dug in
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device
From: Jeffrey Epstein <jeevacation@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 07:18:16 -0500
To: <[redacted]>
Subject: Re:
what about only taxing cash . or taking stock ?
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 5:59 AM, <[redacted]> wrote:
Up at the weekend...
Going to be real prob over bonuses tax.
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device
From: Jeffrey Epstein <jeevacation@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 05:30:57 -0500
To: PETER MANDELSON<[redacted]>
Subject:
i'm up , don't you wish you were?
--](https://taxpolicy.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/image-4.png)
![Email thread between Jeffrey Epstein and Peter Mandelson, dated 15 December 2009: On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 1:56 AM, [redacted]> wrote:
Trying hard to amend as I explained to Jes last night. Treasury digging in but I am on case.
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device
From: Jeffrey Epstein <jeevacation@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 01:53:40 -0500
To: <[redacted]>
Subject: Re:
any real chance of making the tax only on the cash portion of the bankers bonus
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 1:49 AM, [redacted] wrote:
Thurs
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device
From: Jeffrey Epstein <jeevacation@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 01:47:14 -0500
To: PETER MANDELSON<[redacted]>
Subject:
when do you leave?](https://taxpolicy.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/image-2.png)
![Email chain between Jeffrey Epstein and a redacted recipient dated 15 December 2009: To: [redacted]
From: Jeffrey Epstein
Sent: Tue 12/15/2009 7:30:42 AM
Subject: Re:
amend it, deliver the message personally to dimon. im going to sleep
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 2:27 AM, [redacted] wrote:
Or a car crash any earlier
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device
From: Jeffrey Epstein <jeevacation@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 02:21:11 -0500
To: <[redacted]>
Subject: Re:
gb needs help in may , not another enemy
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 2:18 AM, [redacted] wrote:
Treasury
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device
From: Jeffrey Epstein <jeevacation@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 02:01:04 -0500
To: [redacted]
Subject: Re:
they jpm. or they treasury
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 2:00 AM, [redacted] wrote:
Ok. They are not being helpful...
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device
From: Jeffrey Epstein <jeevacation@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 01:57:50 -0500
To: <[redacted]>
Subject: Re:
let me know before jes please,,](https://taxpolicy.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/Screenshot-2026-02-01-at-16.09.35.png)
On 17 December 2009, Mr Epstein asked Mr Mandelson if Jamie Dimon should call the Chancellor one more time.1 Mr Mandelson responded that Jamie Dimon should “mildly threaten” Alistair Darling (presumably threatening to pull business/personnel out of the UK):
![Email thread between Jeffrey Epstein and Peter Mandelson dated 17 December 2009: From: Jeffrey Epstein <jeevacation@gmail.com>
To: "petermandelson@[redacted]" <petermandelson@[redacted]>
Subject: Re:
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 10:40:07 +0000
does it make more sense to offer more for the small business fund in exchange for a reduction in tax
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 2:38 AM, Jeffrey Epstein <jeevacation@gmail.com> wrote:
can we speak?
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 1:14 AM, <[redacted]> wrote:
Yes and mildly threaten
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device
From: Jeffrey Epstein <jeevacation@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 00:33:54 -0500
To: PETER MANDELSON<[redacted]>
Subject:
should jamie call darling one more time, ? they said that jpm alone was over the 500 million said to be needed.
--](https://taxpolicy.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/Screenshot-2026-02-01-at-16.16.01.png)
It looks like Mr Mandelson then spoke to Jamie Dimon directly:
![Email chain between Peter Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein dated 17 December 2009: From: "[redacted]"
To: "Jeevacation" <jeevacation@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Re:
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 14:46:56 +0000
[redacted]
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device
From: Jeevacation <jeevacation@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 09:26:31 -0500
To: [redacted] <[redacted]>
Subject: Re: Re:
Number for dimon to call
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 17, 2009, at 9:21 AM, [redacted] wrote:
Crazy response from Chancellor. He appears unmoveable..
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device
From: Jeffrey Epstein <jeevacation@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 06:59:22 -0500
To: PETER MANDELSON<[redacted]>
Subject:
[redacted]
--](https://taxpolicy.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/image-21.png)
Jamie Dimon appears to have followed up on the “mildly threaten” suggestion. In his autobiography, Alistair Darling describes Mr Dimon’s mood as “angry, very angry” and says he threatened to reduce JPMorgan’s gilt holdings and would reconsider their plans to build a new headquarters in London.2 Faisal Islam, the BBC’s economics editor, has written more about that call, and the light the Epstein emails shed on it.
The Government did not back down, and the tax went ahead.
After the election
After Labour lost power in 2010, Mr Mandelson founded lobbying/consultancy firm Global Counsel. Subsequent email exchanges with Mr Epstein (and a phone call on Christmas Day) appear to show Mr Mandelson positioning for work and perhaps even a position with JPM (with Mr Epstein playing down his chances):
![Email exchange between Jeffrey Epstein and Peter Mandelson dated 16 May 2010: From: Jeffrey Epstein < jeevacation@gmail.com > Date: Sun, 16 May 2010 13:40:09 -0400 To: <
[redacted]> Subject: Re:
I am on your team.. that being said, as currently written the chances of a jpm
positon would be [redacted] May 16, 2010 at 1:17 PM, <
petermandelson@[redacted] > wrote: Most people think if I hadn't been
there, GB would have lost all our seats, not just 100 ! Cannot check quotes. They
wd never agree..](https://taxpolicy.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/Untitled.jpg)
![Email from Peter Mandelson dated 25 December 2010: On Sat, Dec 25, 2010 at 5:06 PM, PETER MANDELSON [redacted]
[redacted] wrote:
Reflecting on our phone call, I hope I can do something with JPM. I told Lazard that I have been asked to do an event in China for JPM as well as a dinner in Hanoi for Barclays and an evening in London for HSBC. They say they happy with this. What they won't accept is my travelling round generally with another bank's name on my ticket. Where appropriate they want me to bear the Lazard brand - push business their way. Lazard will help my own and Global Counsel's brand.
Lazard have also said, tho, that if in the course of Global Counsel business I am helping deals that involve other banks, they will be grown up about that. They have their own close relationship with JPM, Barclays etc.
1
EFTA_R1_00141132
EFTA01801056
So if I am going to do something for JPM, it should be a discreet Global Counsel project, something that does not directly compromise my Lazard relationship and which also does not trample on Tony's territory.
At this stage in my post ministerial life, I am learning. But I am a quick learner. My aim is to acquire enough knowledge and networks in time to participate in real deals. I do not want to live by salary alone. That's why I need to do as much as possible to build with JPM.](https://taxpolicy.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/image-1.png)
Mr Mandelson said: “My aim is to acquire enough knowledge and networks in time to participate in real deals. I do not want to live by salary alone. That’s why I need to do as much as possible to build with JPM”.
Mr Mandelson’s response
Mr Mandelson told the FT:
Every UK and international bank was making the same argument about the impact on UK financial services. My conversations in government at the time reflected the views of the sector as a whole not a single individual.
This doesn’t explain Mr Mandelson’s actions. It’s quite extraordinary for a serving Government minister to advise a foreign bank to threaten the Chancellor in order to reduce its UK tax bill.
Thanks to K for research, and many thanks to Jim Pickard at the Financial Times.
Banks say they’re overtaxed. The TUC says they’re undertaxed. Who’s right?
Search the Mandelson Government documents
Mandelson and the Epstein emails: could he be prosecuted?
Epstein files: Mandelson email search
![Cropped email dated 26 July 2010 sent from a BlackBerry device: On Jul 26, 2010, at 1:51 PM, [redacted]
It's about reputation and perception. Public goo[illegible]
(modest and temporary, I hope) reputational hit [illegible]
about disclosure and speed. But that was due to [illegible]
tut-tutting will subside, as it is starting to do alr[illegible]
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device](https://taxpolicy.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/Screenshot-2026-02-02-at-11.16.37-640x360.png)
Mandelson leaked No 10 documents to Epstein – who then helped him pursue multi-million dollar jobs
![Email from Peter Mandelson to jeevacation@gmail.com dated 7 November 2010: To: jeevacation@gmail.com[jeevacation@gmail.com]
From: Peter Mandelson
Sent: Sun 11/7/2010 2:34:57 PM
Subject: Fwd: Rio apartment
Sent to my bank manager. Grateful for helpful thoughts from my chief life adviser....
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
From: Peter Mandelson [redacted]>
Date: 7 November 2010 14:29:12 GMT
To: '[redacted]
Cc: [redacted]>
Subject: Rio apartment
[redacted], as we discussed, I am considering a purchase of an apartment in Rio. It is in](https://taxpolicy.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/Screenshot-2026-01-31-at-21.27.15-640x360.png)
Emails show Peter Mandelson discussing Panama tax structure with Jeffrey Epstein
Footnotes
Mr Dimon’s reported comment that JPM’s bill would be over the total revenue the tax was expected to raise reveals the problem with the tax. The intention was to reduce bonuses as well as raise money – £550m was the projected figure. That kind of dual purpose is often problematic – the need for revenue ends up undermining the quasi-regulatory purpose. So whilst the Government expected it would incentivise banks to reduce bonuses, JPM’s response illustrates what actually happened: competitive pressure (from banks in other countries, and non-banks in the UK) meant that bonuses did not reduce much at all. The tax therefore raised significantly more than anticipated – £2.3bn. Our view is that this was a badly designed tax – its short timescale was distortive and unfair, and it failed to achieve its stated policy aims. A financial activities tax would have been more rational and, probably, more effective. ↩︎
See Back from The Brink, near the end of Chapter 11. Thanks to Faisal Islam for spotting this. ↩︎
Leave a Reply