The Times questions this morning whether the 2.4 million pound donation to the LibDems by convicted perjurer Michael Brown was permissable under Electoral Commission rules. Three of the four investors in 5th Avenue Partners were foreign, which raises the possibilty that the LibDems were in effect given a foreign donation. This is The Times's speculation, not mine.
These four investors, who include former Man United chairman Martin Edwards, believe it was their money which Brown donated and they want it back. However, the LibDems have spent the money and couldn't pay it back even if they felt morally obliged to - which they don't.
The next stage is for the four investors to launch a court action against the LibDems. Watch this space.
10 comments:
Sehr geEhrte Iain
Have your legal commenters clarified the legal status of the LibDem Party for us ? Are the Members personally liable for the Party's debts ?
Should you be asking Sero (Guido's Co-Conspirator to get hold of the latest LibDem accounts !?
Your obedient servant etc
Wonder why the Times are not being consistent snd asking the Conservatives to repay the substantial donations they received from Azil Nadir who fled to Northern Cyprus to avoid multi million fraud charges at the Old Bailey in 1993 .
They WILL have to gove the money back, I am sure of it!
He has been convicted of telling some sort of lie on his passport application. That is not remotely being convicted of financial fraud & I think it would be very unwise of anybody to take your advice to sue for money on the basis of this conviction, let alone sue a 3rd party.
Personally I think this a less serious charge than stting fire to curtains or supplying anti-aircraft missiles to Moslem terrorists engaged in genocide which receive less punishment (in the latter case none.
http://www.freenations.freeuk.com/news-2004-11-15.html
As far as company donations go I don't think the nationality of the owners is relevant.
the issue is whether, as far as the Limp Dems reasonably knew, the company was trading in the Uk at the time.
The EC have cleared them on this.
And to answer g eagle's question - the Limp Dems don't have any major debts at present and can probably put their hands on a couple of million in soft loans if they really need to.
hopefully this will drag on in court etc for a year or two and then the LD's will be stymied for funds at the next election.
Unless Blears has her way and they start robbing all of us!
The companies have never traded or filed in the UK so that breaches another requirement. It's clear that the LibDems should not have accepted. Wasn't this covered by the blogs back in June or July? We got anons pretending not to be LibDems defending them on those threads, too. If someone does their job properly the Dems are in the dung.
Anon 1:09pm
Vielen Dank
G E
Mark Senior - er, because that was before the law was changed. What the Tories did then was stoooopid, but not illegal! What the Lib Dems did was illegal!
Adrian the LibDems have done something illegal ? Who in a position of authority has said this ? Various Conservatives not whiter than white themselves may have said this but noone with any legal authority .
The last paragraph in Iain's thread is favtually wrong also . The next stage cannot be for the 4 investors to launch a case against the LibDems to get their money back . They must first win a case against the person they lent their money to . This they have not done and may prove harder than you may think . For example the court may decide that although Brown was guilty of deception the investors were partly to blame for lending the money when some checking would have shown it was not prudent .
Eventually it may be that the LibDems will have to pay back the investors but this is a long way away and will not be a problem and could even be a benefit . As a LibDem member my share of the debt would be around £ 30 . If I and others sent the LibDems a round £50 or even £ 100 there would be a hefty surplus to fight the next election on .
Post a Comment