Those Donations

Hmm, anyone want to comment on this?

Mr Abrahams used four go-betweens to hide his identity, in contravention of Labour Party donation rules on transparency.

That\’s a nice little get out, don\’t you think? We only broke our own rules, not the law? But, erm, aren\’t the rules on disclosure actually set by the Electoral Commission, ie, they are the law, not Labour Party rules?

Disclosure laws state that anyone donating money to a party on behalf of someone else must make it clear where the money comes from.

Ah, quite so.

Mr Brown – who admitted a donation on behalf of Mr Abrahams for his leadership campaign had been rejected by his team – said Labour would return all of the £673,975 involved in the scandal.

Erm, shouldn\’t it be forfeit, as the UKIP money was? And anyway, now that the planning permissions has been granted, what are they returning the fee for?

6 comments on “Those Donations

  1. PPERA 2000, section 54(1), “A donation received by a registered party must not be accepted by the party if … the party is (whether because the donation has been given anonymously or by reason of any deception or concealment or oetherwise) unable to ascertain the identity of that person.”

    Well, they can wriggle off that, because Nulab DID know whoe the real donor was, so the forfeiture rules in section 58 don’t kick in.

    What Nulan clearly did was deliberateyl misreporting the sources of their donations. section 65(4) says “The treasurer also commits an offence if he delivers a donation report to the Commission which does not comply with any requirements of this Part …”

    So unless somebody knows better, I’m not sure there is an argument that the donations should be forfeited, although may a hefty jail term await Nulab’s treasurer.

  2. Does the money get returned to Mr Abrahams or to his go-betweens. If it is the latter what is to stop them keeping the money?

  3. andlets not forget tax evasion. The money was gifted to his go betweens. That requires tax if i am not mistaken. So HMG requires 40% or so plus a fine for evasion. Then there is breaking the law, correct me if I’m wrong but, does that not come with some form of punishment. It seems we have six people bang to rights for some of these. Plus the consfiscation of the cash.

    I bet Yates is looking at is statements from Watt’s with interest.

    How can they cover this one up? It’s not in the interests of the UK to prosecute because it will impact the fight against terror?

    It couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch.

  4. “How can they cover this one up? It’s not in the interests of the UK to prosecute because it will impact the fight against terror?”

    Please don’t give them ideas….

  5. Gifts from one private individual to another aren’t usually taxable. They might fall within the scope of IHT should the donor die within seven years of the gift.

    However money given by an employer to an employee generally is taxable. Even when given ‘privately’, HMRC might be interested given the size of the sums given and the fact that strict directions were given on how the money was to be used.

    And don’t forget that “being in possession of the proceeds of a crime” is now how we define money-laundering in this country.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.