Friday, June 19, 2009

Police examine Michael Brown donation to Lib Dems

Michael Crick was trying to make Liberal Democrat blood run cold on Newsnight earlier this evening, and now the story is on the BBC News website:

Police are investigating money laundering allegations over the Liberal Democrats' acceptance of £2.4m from a donor later convicted of fraud.

Michael Brown's donation hugely boosted the party's 2005 election campaign, the BBC's Newsnight programme said.

Mr Brown was convicted of fraud in 2008 but vanished before being sentenced to seven years in jail last month.

The party said its auditors were "satisfied that we do not need to make provision for repayment".

Mr Brown's victims say the Liberal Democrats were using their stolen money.


Alex Wilcock said...

Might I add a link to my subtle and understated Dodgy Donors: Your Cut-Out-And-Keep Guide to Spotting the Difference, which points out that one donor approached the Liberal Democrats – not the other way round – and offered a large donation. We never offered any favours. He never asked for any. He never received any. The Electoral Commission says we made all the right checks, and he looked all right (though they appear to be a quasi-judicial body that can repeatedly find you ‘not guilty unless we decide to change our minds’).

Even Labour’s disregard for the Rule of Law and grievous misuse of state power has yet to result in them making it legal for political parties to have paramilitary forces authorised to march in and demand details from any private individual that takes their fancy. It took months of investigation of his finances, all of which had nothing to do with the Liberal Democrats, for police and fraud inspectors to find out he was actually a crook.

Anonymous said...

Completely Alex, and the only person the money could be legally returned to is Brown himeself.

Mark Pack said...

It's an odd combination of views that the person who complained to the police is trying to argue:

a) That it was quite unreasonable for him to think that Michael Brown was a crook before giving him money, but also

b) That it was quite unreasonable for the Liberal Democrats not to think that Michael Brown was a crook before taking money from him.

If it was so obvious as he claims, why did he give Michael Brown so much of his own money?

LibCync said...

How can it be "money laundering"? It's not like he got it back. Unless he owned a billboard firm or printing press...