"Cash for Honours"

Friday, 17 March 2006

The question of whether loans were granted to political parties in return for nominations for peerages goes beyond "sleaze", "breach of parliamentary rules" or "political embarrassment". Criminal offences may have been committed. If a loan was corruptly offered or given as an inducement to obtain a nomination for a peerage, or if a nomination for a peerage was corruptly offered as an inducement to obtain a loan, then the criminal offence of bribery may have been committed. Even if direct proof is absent, liability may be inferred from the circumstances. The persons liable may include not only those directly involved, but also those who were wilfully blind to the circumstances. In addition, a deception offence under the Theft Acts or an accounting offence may have been committed if any deception was used in the method by which the loans were obtained or recorded. These may be serious criminal offences.

No UK government can take a leading role in reducing corruption overseas unless it, and the political parties from which it is formed, behave with absolute propriety, and are seen to behave with absolute propriety. It must also behave with complete impartiality when it comes to investigating and prosecuting corruption. No government should be treated as being above the law.

The amount of money in question, and the national importance of this issue, brings this issue within the ambit of the Serious Fraud Office. Transparency International (UK) calls on the Serious Fraud Office to commence an immediate investigation, and to take appropriate action in the light of the facts revealed.