Some people might be rashly suggesting offences other than those under PPERA might have been committed – but I think that’s wild talk, to be frank.
Some might suggest it’s false accounting – but to charge that under section 17 of the Theft Act 1968, there must be evidence that the suspect acted with a view to gain for himself or another, or with intent to cause loss to another. I don’t really see that that applies here as the http://www.lependart.com wrong reporting was after the money was donated: Peter Watts could have reported the donations accurately, and would have caused no gain or loss to Labour by doing so. Plus, I don’t think he’d be found to have acted dishonestly. So that’s out.
Other people might say money laundering offences apply: but the problem there is that the Money Laundering Regulations only apply to certain categories of people: see Regulation 3.
What about POCA? It applies to everyone – see my blog.
Are you aware that David Abrahams aka David Martin is non other than…
AIB GROUP (UK)PLC
(FORMERLY ALLIED IRISH BANKS PLC AND AIB FINANCE LIMITED)
(RESPONDENTS)
v.
MARTIN AND ANOTHER
(APPELLANT)
ON 13 DECEMBER 2001
[2001] UKHL 63
I think talk of POCA is wild, too, Danvers. In what sense was the money the proceeds of crime? How did it represent the benefit of criminal conduct?
If Janet Kidd told Labour the money came from Abrahams – and Peter Watt did know that – then she acted lawfully, and so did Abrahams. And so did Peter Watt in accepting it. Nobody gets the money by doing anything unlawful.
What was unlawful was wrongly reporting the agent as the donor.
Hi HoL
I think that I’ve discovered an offence to which some of those involved are liable. I’ve sent the details to my MP. After he has had a chance to consider the letter, I will post it here. Say, in a couple of days?
Anon.
I am not sure it is as simple as that. If Kidd/Abrahams donated the money to Labour and told Labour (i.e. Watt) that it was Abraham’s money but that it should be reported as Kidd’s money, they (all three of them) are setting out to breach the PPERA. My understanding of POCA is that just about any transfer of cash in furtherance of a crime constitutes an ML offence.
It could be argued that the cash became tainted with criminality the moment it was transferred to Kidd for the purpose of disguising its true origins for the purposes of a declaration under the PPERA.
It would be the same if an employer and employee were deliberately cheating on Income Tax and giving the difference to a political party – and the political party knew about the scheme.
To be fair, I think to prosecute under POCA would be unfair, but the police love using it to stitch up the nearest and dearest of the real offenders, once they have touched the tainted cash.
The non-PPERA offence that I have in mind is: s1(1) Theft Act 1968; see R v Hinks for an explanation of the law.
Here’s what my law book says on the matter:
“R v Hinks
House of Lords
October 26, 2000
D was convicted of theft of a television set and sums amounting to £60,000 which had been given to her by P, a 53-year-old man of limited intelligence whom she had befriended. The prosecution case had been presented on the basis that she had coerced or unduly influenced P to make the gifts. The prosecution also alleged that P lacked the mental capacity to make gifts. The judge directed the jury that they could convict of theft where D received a valid gift if they were satisfied that her conduct fell short of the standards of ordinary decent people and she realised this. The Court of Appeal upheld her conviction holding that the issue was not whether or not a gift was valid but simply whether there had been an appropriation; a gift might be clear evidence of an appropriation which could occur even though the owner consented to the property being taken. D appealed to the House of Lords. … Appeal dismissed.”
So, anyone who receives a gift dishonestly is in the frame. Abrahams is at the centre, those all the way down the line to the final resting account are liable.
Hence, Kydd, the builder, the solicitor, Peter Watt, whoever in the Harman team, someone in the Hanes team, perhaps Hilary Benn even though he gave it back.
Read Hinks very carefully, the other three elements in s1(1) TA 1968 are all present; the contentious elements are appropriation and dishonesty. The dishonesty part, particularly for the likes of Peter Watt, come from their breaches of PPERA.
I can’t understand why all these people aren’t already in jail awaiting trial.
Sorry: wild talk again I think. First, you’re having to suppose fact we’ve no reason to believe are true, on what we’ve been told: what makes you think Kidd told Labour anything about what to say?
Second, you don’t have dishonesty at all. It doesn’t just “come from breaches of PPERA” – in fact the PPERA offences I’ve bene talking about don’t require dishonesty.
And finally… who has dishonestly appropriated property belonging to another, with intent to deprive them of it permanently? Certainly not Abrahams. Even if you suppose Kidd dishonest – which there’s absolutely no basis to do – by the time she gives money to Labour, it’s hers. And even if you suppose Labour dishonest (again, without basis), can they really be said to be intending to deprive Kidd of money she’s giving them?
Wild talk.
Hi HoL
Here’s the bailii link to R v Hinks.
Firstly, Abrahams wrt Hinks Theft isn’t in the frame. He’s as much in the frame as Mr Dolphin was in Hinks.
The basis of the dishonesty, which is the only element that can be debated, is inferred from trying to breach the PPER Act. The point is (as you made in your very first post about this) is that there still isn’t enough information to make a sensible assessment. I’m saying that the police should have s1(1)TA in mind when interviewing etc. Also, dishonesty is a matter of fact not law: it’s up to a jury to decide. I get the impression (obviously I don’t know, nor am I claiming such) that there is a case to answer.
As for the other elements of s1(1) these are covered in the explanation of the Hinks dismissal by the law lords.