Cameron needs to distance himself – and politics – from the money of a convicted thief

27th August, 2012 4:17 pm

Tags:

How hard is Cameron thinking about whether to pay back the £440,000 donations to the Tories, made between 1985-1990, by Asil Nadir, now convicted of stealing from his own businesses during virtually the same period?

Half the donations came from Polly Peck International, which Nadir was milking of cash from the mid 80s.The other half came from Unipac Packaging, the Nadir group’s North Cypriot “banker”. This is the dodgy business where the SFO found documents, apparently forged, to support Nadir’s claim that his mother had paid billions of Turkish lire in cash to compensate for what he took out. Both Unipac and PPI – Nadir’s main company – were run by him autocratically and payments were made on his signature alone.

Cameron could add to any concerns he has about victims, the UK Cypriot businessman I acted for at the Old Bailey around 1993-4 who stood surety for Nadir, offering a sizeable chunk of the required £3.5M bail, to guarantee his attendance at trial. When Nadir disappeared in a private plane from Compton Abbas airfield, in May 1993, the burden fell on the surety to show why his cash should not be forfeit.

Judges have said: “The real pull of (such) bail is to cause the defendant to attend trial rather than subject his friends to pain and discomfort”

Not in this case.

In fact, the pilot who flew Nadir, proved on appeal from his later conviction for perverting justice, that by an error, Nadir was on unconditional bail from 1992. Whilst hoping, though doubting, that the surety got his bail money back and hadn’t lost his business in the meantime, many of Nadir’s lenders and investors lost everything. They have recovered about 2.9 pence in the £.

Cameron is hanging onto the relatively small (in Tory terms) sum of just less than half a million, whilst Nadir was convicted of stealing £30M, but victims may well to come forward over the next few weeks,  to tell journalists what a difference to their straitened circumstances even that level of recompense would make.

Cameron has had plenty of elders’ advice. Added to John Major’s and then Party Chair Norman Fowler’s assurance in 1993 that if the money were stolen it would paid back, are this week’s assertion by former Tory Treasurer, Lord McAlpine that it “shames the Conservative Party if they hang onto it”. In addition, Mrs Thatcher’s former advisers Bernard Ingham and Charles Powell both say that she would have wanted rid of this stolen cash. In the background is an old letter from administrators, Touche Ross, apparently telling the Tories exactly how they calculate that at least £365,000 of the money was dishonest.

An argument that dishonest money was received in good faith only convincingly counters the duty to pay back if the recipient did something in return- earned the money. A gratuitous donation should surely go back to the victims now that it is clear that any money paid by Nadir after 1985 will have come from his crimes.

Nor can the generation gap save Cameron from his responsibilities since he personally worked for Central Office from 1987. Who knows who paid his wages.

And who knows what favours Nadir thought he might call in, returning as he did just after the 2010 election brought his erstwhile beneficiaries to power. Pie in the sky as that may have been, Cameron should understand that he needs to distance himself – and politics – from the money of a convicted thief and that, albeit in quite a different way than Nadir may have imagined, for Cameron this is payback time.

Vera Baird QC is the Labour Candidate for Northumbria Police and Crime Commissioner and former Solicitor General

To report anything from the comment section, please e-mail [email protected]
  • I’m not a lawyer, but certainly in my current law studies on the Legal Practice Course, in professional conduct and regulation, we are taught in detail about the money laundering regulations and the proceeds of crime act legislation, and how to apply them. 

    Certainly lawyers in  practice the City with big clients need to obey this law, especially to comply with the Code of Conduct of the Solicitors Regulation Authority. 

    One must expect that all political parties are expected to observe these laws too, and I have no idea about their retrospective effect. 

    Excellent article, by the way, and my best wishes for @LabourList as per usual.

  • Excellent article. On my legal practice course, for professional conduct and regulation, we are taught in detail about the importance of an understanding of the money laundering regulations and the proceeds of crime legislation. 

    Certainly, the Solicitors Regulation Authority expect all student lawyers at my stage to have a thorough understanding of how to apply these laws. Many of us indeed go on to work in the City, where it is not uncommon for certain new clients to have substantial apparent wealth.

    I would expect also that all political parties should have processes and procedures concerning this, but I have no idea what protocols they have for giving money back with retrospective effect.

  • Andwhynot

    Is Cameron’s difficulty identifying the donations from convicted fraudsters from the unconvicted ones. His Party seems to want reward corruption – didn’t Osborne champion banker’s bonuses and now we discover LIBOR crimes that may never see justice but put Nadir’s crimes in the shade.

    Morally (there’s another term that Cameron is unlikely to recognise) the Tories should place the money received from Nadir at the disposal of the Courts so that creditors can have first claim, although I fear that this will result in HMRC having preferred status.

  • Robert_Crosby

    Financial impropriety is something I will never excuse.  Rightly or wrongly, the public have increasingly lumped dodgy donations in with other forms of misconduct and sleaze.  The best way of exposing the Tories in voters’ eyes is to ensure that WE are diligent and that WE get OUR house in order.  Part of that means consigning greedy expenses claimants to obscurity and not picking them still to fight elections.

  • Robert_Crosby

    Financial impropriety is something I will never excuse.  Rightly or wrongly, the public have increasingly lumped dodgy donations in with other forms of misconduct and sleaze.  The best way of exposing the Tories in voters’ eyes is to ensure that WE are diligent and that WE get OUR house in order.  Part of that means consigning greedy expenses claimants to obscurity and not picking them still to fight elections.

  • MarcusTankus

    I wonder if he got a passport out of it ..or policy changed …..?

  • Pingback: Cameron needs to distance himself – and politics – from the money of a convicted thief « VeraBaird.com()

Latest

  • News Weekly survey: English patriotism and devolved mayor selections

    Weekly survey: English patriotism and devolved mayor selections

    This week Tristram Hunt and Jon Cruddas have both called on Labour to embrace ideas of community and to develop a progressive idea of English patriotism. Do you think this is an effective way for Labour to win over voters in England? There are now three people in the race to become Labour’s candidate for Greater Manchester Mayor: Andy Burnham, Ivan Lewis and Tony Lloyd. Who do you think should be the Labour candidate for next year’s election? There are two people, […]

    Read more →
  • Europe Featured News Momentum swings behind vote to stay in EU

    Momentum swings behind vote to stay in EU

    Momentum has vowed to throw its weight behind the campaign for an In vote in next month’s EU referendum after it held a consultation with supporters. The pro-Corbyn group surprised many people earlier this year when it confirmed they had not taken a position on the referendum, despite the Labour leader and the party adopting a firm stance in favour of Remain. It was seen as the first time that Momentum had not automatically supported Jeremy Corbyn’s position, and led to […]

    Read more →
  • Featured News Blair questions whether Corbyn can win in 2020

    Blair questions whether Corbyn can win in 2020

    Tony Blair has cast doubt on whether Jeremy Corbyn could win a general election as he called for a ground war to defeat ISIS. The former prime minister, who spoke out against Corbyn’s campaign last summer, also described his surprise at the rise of populist political movements in Britain and the US. In comments that will spark a furious debate among Labour supporters, Blair questioned the appeal of Corbynistas after their leader’s overwhelming win in the leadership contest. “It’s not yet […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Apprenticeships pledge reveals another broken Tory promise

    Apprenticeships pledge reveals another broken Tory promise

    Another month, another broken ministerial pledge. It centres around the delivery of a promise on apprenticeships, and it fuels the let-down felt by people and businesses in my Bristol South constituency. It seems a long time ago, but the 2015 Queen’s Speech highlighted apprenticeships as a big part of the government’s plan, with a pledge for three million new ones by 2020. Home to some of the most economically deprived wards in the country, Bristol South sends fewer of its […]

    Read more →
  • Featured Local Government News Sadiq names his City Hall deputies to shake-up housing and transport

    Sadiq names his City Hall deputies to shake-up housing and transport

    Sadiq Khan has today finalised his top team to help implement his plans at City Hall with the announcement of his deputy mayors. Joanne McCartney was Khan’s first official appointment when she was made his statutory Deputy Mayor. Now she has been joined by deputy mayors with responsibility for housing, transport and policing. The most well-known of the new appointments is Deputy Mayor for Transport, Val Shawcross, who stood down as an Assembly Member this month after 16 years. She […]

    Read more →
x

LabourList Daily Email

Everything Labour. Every weekday morning

Share with your friends










Submit