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

  • 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 10 reasons to be wary of assisted dying

    10 reasons to be wary of assisted dying

    1. Assisted suicide is almost certainly not as popular as its supporters claim. Dignity In Dying claim that 82% of British people support assisted suicide, based on an online survey by the polling organisation Populus. This oft-repeated figure is a very bold claim, and so deserves to be subjected to some severe critical scrutiny (and even if it is accurate, it would not clinch the argument: sometimes we need to protect minorities regardless of majority feeling). So should we trust […]

    Read more →
  • News Is Ed Miliband going to rule out a return to frontline politics?

    Is Ed Miliband going to rule out a return to frontline politics?

    Ed Miliband could publicly rule out a return to frontline politics next week, according to this morning’s Times. The move would mean ruling himself out of a Shadow Cabinet position under Labour’s new leader. The paper reports that Miliband wants a break after spending five years as Leader of the Opposition. It is common for Labour leaders to step back from the frontbenches after leaving the role, with most never returning to a prominent role in the Commons. However, Miliband’s relative […]

    Read more →
  • Featured News Clement Attlee chosen as Labour’s greatest ever leader

    Clement Attlee chosen as Labour’s greatest ever leader

    The Spirit of ’45 lives on – Clement Attlee was the Labour Party’s greatest ever leader, according to LabourList readers. In our survey this week, which also found that readers feel they have most to fear from an Osborne-led Tory Party, we asked those who took part to pick who they thought was Labour’s best leader from history. People could only pick one, and the list does not include acting leaders (sorry Margaret Beckett and Harriet Harman). Unsurprisingly, Clement Attlee […]

    Read more →
  • Featured News George Osborne as Tory leader would pose the biggest threat to Labour, say LabourList readers

    George Osborne as Tory leader would pose the biggest threat to Labour, say LabourList readers

    Last week Jeremy Corbyn argued that the House of Lords should be replaced with a proportionately-represented elected second chamber. We asked LabourList readers what they thought about this. The vast majority of people are in favour of Corbyn’s proposals; 70% said yes while about 25% said weren’t in favour of this particular idea but wants the Lords reformed in some way. Only 4% said no and 1% opted for ‘don’t know’. Although all eyes are focussed on the Labour leadership […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Featured Why I introduced the Assisted Dying Bill

    Why I introduced the Assisted Dying Bill

    My main reason for introducing the Assisted Dying Bill is simple. It’s a straightforward question of choice and dignity: with appropriate, strong safeguards, terminally ill adults of sound mind should be legally allowed to choose to have assistance to end their own lives. I value life, and I do understand that some people believe very deeply that ending one’s own life is always wrong. Nevertheless, the depth and sincerity of their belief should not mean that they deny choice to […]

    Read more →
Share with your friends










Submit