We trust that Mr Clark - pictured above - is watching this case. He has also been under investigation by OLAF after it was alleged that he was also misusing his EU allowances. See: LINK
And we also trust that Stuart Agnew and David Bannerman are keeping a close eye on the case. Agnew admitted on video that both he and Bannerman were illegally paying Peter Reeve - UKIP RO - out of their EU allowances. See: LINK
And let us not forget Farage who pays his wife over 30,000 a year for allegedly doing his office paperwork. And what about the £2 million he admitted claiming in expenses since becoming an MEP? He has consistently refused to say where the money went. He has also refused to provide a full audit of his MEP accounts and expenses. And don't forget the Ashford Call Centre scam. Even Bannerman admitted that only 15% of the money raised by that centre actually went to UKIP! And what happened to the £211,000 that vanished from UKIP's SE accounts? Was it just coincidence that Farage later paid a similar amount into a private bank account?
The truth will out!
From Paliament.com:
Former UK MEP Den Dover will go to court later this week to contest a decision that he should repay part of his parliamentary expenses.
The European Court of Justice in Luxembourg is expected to give its ruling on the case on Thursday.
Parliament says that between 1999 and 2008 it paid a total of just over €1m to a company called MP Holdings Ltd which listed as its directors Den Dover's wife and daughter.
The money came from the allowance intended to pay the salaries and costs of a MEPs' staff and Dover's company was supposed to administer it independently.
Questions about the arrangements started to be asked in 2006 but it was not until 2008 that parliament's secretary general suggested that there was a conflict of interest and asked for details of the actual expenditure.
In October, the secretary general ruled that for the period August 1999 to June 2008 only €482,000 could be justified as having been paid in salaries, national insurance and legitimate staff travel expenses.
On Tuesday, a parliament spokesman told this website, "We will wait for the decision of the court. If the court supports parliament's position, then parliament will continue steps to recover the funds from the former MEP.
"However, parliament has no powers to prosecute anyone."
UK Liberal Democrat MEP Chris Davies has campaigned for more transparency in MEPs' pay and allowances and has taken a particular interest in the Dover case.
Davies said, "I hope that most people elected to parliament know the difference between right and wrong, honourable and dishonourable behaviour, without having to have it laid down by law. But the fact is that some do not - as recent 'cash for amendments' - revelations suggest."
He said the scale of abuse that "seems to have become common practice" amongst some MEPs was revealed in a secret report by parliament's internal auditor in June 2008.
Davies said, "I was one of the few MEPs who had the chance, as a member of the budgetary control committee, to read the report in a sealed room.
"The report led to changes which have very significantly curbed the abuse of the secretarial allowance payments, but disgracefully, parliament is still requesting that the Court of Justice keeps the auditor's report secret. This is ridiculous given that it can be found on the internet.
"So Den Dover might well feel very hard done by to have been fingered and chased by parliament when so many others seem to have got away with it.
"Indeed, I think he could have got away with it himself if he hadn't tried to be clever and make payments through an 'independent' company.
"My interpretation of the rules that applied at the time is that he could have legitimately paid the entire allowance to his wife in her capacity as his secretary. She could have been the best paid secretary in the world but the payments wouldn't have been challenged."
He went on, "On Thursday we find out whether the court agrees that the financial abuse was flagrant and the money must be repaid.
"Alternatively, the court could just agree that the parliamentary rules were so lax for years that it would not be fair to demand retrospective repayments now."
The case before the ECJ is administrative not criminal, but if Den Dover is required to repay the money does it end there?
"In Britain, MPs have gone to jail for wrongly claiming €22,000. What length of imprisonment would be justified by false claims for €573,000?"
To see the original: LINK
No comments:
Post a Comment