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

  • News Unite might refuse to Burnham if he won’t commit to an anti-austerity message, reports suggest

    Unite might refuse to Burnham if he won’t commit to an anti-austerity message, reports suggest

    Andy Burnham has been pegged as the leadership candidate that the unions will back since he announced he was entering the contest. Although in terms of financial backing, Burnham has said he would rather unions gave their money directly to the party to help the rebuilding process instead of his campaign. However, it now seems that support for Burnham from one of the country’s biggest unions, Unite, isn’t as definite as has previously been said. The Telegraph (£) have reported […]

    Read more →
  • Featured News John Healey announces he’s standing to be deputy leader

    John Healey announces he’s standing to be deputy leader

    John Healey is joining the race to become Labour’s deputy leader, making him the 7th MP to do so. Healey, who was a housing minister under Gordon Brown, made this announcement in an article in the Guardian. He said that he hadn’t planned on standing but has been “dismayed at how narrow and shallow Labour’s debate has been so far.” He also wrote: “I know I’m a late entrant when others have been up and running for some time. But […]

    Read more →
  • News Shadow Minister backs Liz Kendall to be Labour leader

    Shadow Minister backs Liz Kendall to be Labour leader

    Ivan Lewis, Shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, has announced that he’s backing Liz Kendall to be the next Labour leader. In an article for the New Statesman, Lewis dismisses terms such as “Blairite” (a label that has been applied to Kendall) and says that although he thinks that “Tony Blair did more good than bad for Labour” neither “Liz Kendall or I believe that Labour’s route back to Government can be charted via the New Labour handbook.” He gives […]

    Read more →
  • Comment The Labour Party needs a peasants’ revolt, not a palace coup

    The Labour Party needs a peasants’ revolt, not a palace coup

    So we lost a General Election. Rather badly. I start with this uncomfortable observation as it seems already to have been brushed aside by many in the party delirious with the fever of electing a new Leader. The thinking of too many seems to be: “The previous Leader was weak or wrong on too many issues for the British electorate. All we need to do is find the right spearhead and everything will be fine”. Yet this is the most […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Labour must make the case for culture

    Labour must make the case for culture

    Over the next few weeks, for those of us in politics the hard work of another five years in opposition begins in earnest. A new programme of government legislation, a new agenda to shape and respond to, and the little matter of a leadership election to complete. But for many people outside of politics, the next few weeks are the start of a summer of UK cultural events; international music festivals such as Glastonbury and the BBC proms, a summer […]

    Read more →
Share with your friends










Submit