Tuesday, November 27, 2007

How Will the £600,000 be Returned?

So Gordon is going to give the money back. All £600,000 of it. I remember the last time this happened, when Labour returned Bernie Ecclestone's cheque. It took him a year to cash it. Perhaps Mr Abrahams will be encouraged to do the same. Of course, in theory there is nothing to stop him then donating it back to the Labour Party under his own name.

To save face all round, perhaps it might be best of the Labour Party were to give the money to chsrity. Then there can be no suspicions of anything.

23 comments:

Anonymous said...

Maybe he'll return the money via 'intermediaries' ...

Teesbridge said...

"It might be best if the Labour Party were to give the money to charity"

The Smith Institute is a Charity...

MJC said...

Since the Labour Party must know the Bank accounts on which the original cheques were drawn the money could be returned by means of a bankers payment needing no action on behalf of the recipient. This would of course mean that the cash would go to the straw men and that they would be responsible for passin it on to Mr Abrahams.

Somehow I don't think that it will happen like this.

clouseau said...

Who is to say that Mr Abrahams was the original source of the money? He might just have been placing it on behalf of another. A police enquiry is needed to establish exactly whose money this is.

Newmania said...

To late , so it was a loan. THEY NEEDED IT THEN

Man in a Shed said...

Two points:

1) Wasn't UKIP threatened with have the money confiscated by the electoral commission when there was a relatively minor point about their major benefactor being allowed to donate?

2) The money - if returned - *belongs* to the people who acted as cover, not Mr Abraham's. Can't they keep it ? It was after all given to them in the first place, unless there is documentary evidence it was for another purpose in which case doesn't it look like fraud ?

A friend called said...

George Soros will always step in if he has to.

Stephen said...

The money can only be returned to those that sent it, ie the Agents.

The Electoral Commission stil has the power to fine the Labour Party for accepting this in the first place.

If Brown wants us to think of him as snow white then why didn't he say it would be returned on Saturday when he was first made aware of this criminal activity? Why has it taken 4 days for him to come up with this ruse to try and divert the publec's attention from the fact that the Labour Party has been involved in illegal money laundering?

And finally will the planning permission now be revoked?

johnny firstclass said...

Surely they should send it by unregistered post.

Anonymous said...

took a year to cash the cheque. I thought cheques were only valid for 6 months. So does that mean a replacement cheque had to be issued.

Mark Harrison said...

Giving money to the Labour Party seems to be very good value.

1: You get the decision you want.

2: You get your money back.

If only the Conservatives would offer such a great deal :-)


[Oh, and for the avoidance of doubt, that was sarcasm]

Mindless sexist bigot said...

Gordon wouldn't have offered unless someone had offered to cover the cost.

It's not racist yet to mention that he is a Scotsman is it?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous,

It used to be the case that cheques expired after 6 months but I learnt recently from the bank that this is no longer the case, they no longer expire...

Zorro.

Anonymous said...

The Labour Party would have to return the money to the person from whom they received it.

Mr A intimated on TV that the intermediaries were only advised to give the money to Labour and were not instructed that they must do so. Therefore, I can see nothing in law that states they may not retain it.

dougal said...

In which case, it was a gift, surely and so must incur tax? Why no comment from HMRC (well, officially, not on here, obviously).

I would like to give my daughter £50k without her paying tax on it - can I quote Mr Abrahams as a precedent?

Anonymous said...

I am amazed that Brown did not EXPLICITLY include in his investigations the possibility of corruption in the reversal of the planning decision for Durham Green Developments.

Anonymous said...

.......clearly another job for Yates of the yard!

Anonymous said...

I could be wrong, but I have understood that criminally obtained funds will be returned to the Treasury, not to the original donor/s.

What you might call a win/win for our Great Leader.

Nick said...

The money should go to the treasury.

The labour party also should pay the fine equal in size.

If they choose to give money back as well, so be it.

I hope the secretary, builder, lawyer, keep the money, and pay the tax on it.

Bigot Smiter said...

Nor is it racist to mention that Mindless sexist bigot is an English onanist.

Nick said...

Hillary Benn says that he didn't accept 5K from Janet Kidd because he knew the money was from another source.

Perhaps next time he sees someone being mugged, burgled or another crime being attempted, he won't tell the police.

Nick

NorthernMonkey said...

Nick what the hell are you on about? Hilary Benn did the right thing by not accepting Abrahams donation through another name. Benn said either donate in your own name or don't donate at all - that was the right thing to do.

Jill, London said...

Stephen is quite right. How come it took Comrade Brown four days to do anything about this "unlawful" [his words] donation which he claims to have only known about when he read it first on Saturday night. [Obviously in the first edition of “The Mail on Sunday” which ran it as an exclusive.]

And what about the rather convenient planning consent being granted to the latest ‘outed’ Labour donor when it had been refused before his dosh? This appears to have been handed over to Hazel Blears who is already ‘passing the buck’/deflecting criticism from the Labour Government. No change there, then.

Considering the Labour Party were lucky that Yates of the Yard’s ‘cash-for-honours’ result was killed by the Crown Prosecution Service when it appeared as if prosecutions, and convictions were imminent – I don’t hold out any hope that the Crown Prosecution Service will be any more effective this time.

Amongst the many things that irk me so much about the Labour Party is their sanctimonious comments about any real – or perceived – wrongdoing by their political opponents. Yet, when they are caught out they suddenly take a lax attitude, and instantly start their 'not me guv’ claims.