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

August 27, 2012 4:17 pm

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

  • http://twitter.com/shibleylondon Shibs

    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.

  • http://twitter.com/shibleylondon Shibs

    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

  • Comment Polling Clacton polling: What does it say for Labour?

    Clacton polling: What does it say for Labour?

    The date for the by-election in Clacton was confirmed this morning as Thursday, October 9th – not only the day after the Lib Dem conference finishes but also David Cameron’s birthday. The two polls so far in the constituency do not point to many happy returns for the Prime Minister, as the result appears to be a foregone conclusion. At the weekend, a Survation poll in the Mail on Sunday gave UKIP a 44% lead over the second place Tories. […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Does Labour have a problem with black men?

    Does Labour have a problem with black men?

    Now that may seem a strange question for a Party that has both Chuka Umunna and Sadiq Khan in its Shadow Cabinet but something troubling is emerging from the current round of Parliamentary selections. Of the 100 constituencies where Labour hopes to make gains or when Labour MPs have announced their retirement/parliamentary by-elections since 2010 so far just three have selected a BME male candidate. And this is from a section of society which is immensely loyal to the Labour […]

    Read more →
  • Featured Why are you Labour?

    Why are you Labour?

    Why are you a member of the Labour Party? I’d been a member for years when someone first asked me that question. On some level I guess I knew the answer, but no-one at any Constituency Labour Party meeting, canvassing session, conference – or even in the pub  –  had ever outright asked me the question. It was Arnie Graf – an American, rather than someone steeped in the party their whole life – who asked me. It was an obvious […]

    Read more →
  • News Eddie Izzard commits to running for “Parliament or Mayor” by 2020

    Eddie Izzard commits to running for “Parliament or Mayor” by 2020

    Comic and actor Eddie Izzard has reaffirmed his longstanding commitment to entering electoral politics by 2020, by going for a Labour parliamentary selection or London Mayor. Izzard is a lifelong Labour supporter (and Londoner) and has spoken in the past of his desire to become London Mayor. However, the recent announcement that Boris Johnson does not intend to stand for a third term has raised the chances of Labour winning the mayoralty in 2016, and thus there being a Labour incumbent in […]

    Read more →
  • News Jowell takes on new London-based role before potential mayoral bid

    Jowell takes on new London-based role before potential mayoral bid

    Tessa Jowell has taken on a new role lecturing at the London School of Economics (LSE), which should give her the time to concentrate on a likely campaign to be Labour’s candidate for London Mayor. Jowell, who is standing down as an MP next year, has started her post as Professor of Practice with the LSE Cities and in the Department of Government part-time. Jowell is currently considered one of the front-runners in the race for Labour’s candidacy, but all […]

    Read more →