Here comes the Mone

1finny said:
Im genuinely unsure what legally she has done wrong.
She is a liar, morally bankrupt but won a tender (not her fault).
If the goods were faulty there is a legal route but, if she pays the money back I think that’s it.

Anyone else know?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure exactly what laws she's broken either, but based on what has been reported about the National Crime Agency's investigation into them, the couple are:

facing allegations of fraud and bribery
Click to expand...

Also, when you're totally innocent of any criminality, the following doesn't usually happen to you.

April 2022
The National Crime Agency executed search warrants at Mone and Barrowman’s homes in London and the Isle of Man, and PPE Medpro’s offices. The crime agency has said its investigation began in May 2021, and was looking into “suspected criminal offences committed in the procurement of PPE contracts by PPE Medpro”.
Click to expand...

How the Michelle Mone scandal unfolded
 
FishofContemplation said:
Yeah but finny’s question was what SHE had done illegally. Any alleged breach of registration rules by him is on him and if it meets the criminal standard, he should be charged. Any allegation the goods were counterfeit is a matter of civil law for the supposed legitimate owner of the intellectual property. If the goods were not fit for purpose, the government shouldn’t have paid for them. But none of this is an allegation of unlawful activity by her. Still less, an allegation of criminal activity by her.

As far as possible loss of her ennoblement is concerned, that’s a political issue, I would’ve thought, and the possible breach of the disclosure rules seems a more relevant thing than the fact she lied to some journalists.
Click to expand...
As mentioned several times now, by myself and others, she is facing charges of fraud and bribery in a National Crime Agency investigation that's been going on for a couple of years now.
 
If she and her husband have put that £60m profit, they made from supplying PPE during the pandemic, into a family Trust then it cannot be retrieved as it is no longer a sole asset of theirs. They're definitely not stupid people.

#UTB
 
Alan_Breck said:
If she and her husband have put that £60m profit, they made from supplying PPE during the pandemic, into a family Trust then it cannot be retrieved as it is no longer a sole asset of theirs. They're definitely not stupid people.

#UTB
Click to expand...

.... good point. If they are prosecuted of a criminal activity, then funds, assets etc can be recovered:

Proceeds of Crime Act

But it isn't clear if this refers to the amount of the benefit ie:

The benefit figure is the amount the defendant has gained as a result of criminal acts.

Or the actual assets themselves. As you say, now contained in a Trust. Who knows if you can protect criminally obtained assets etc by placing them in a Trust.

The lawyers will be happy as this is played out.
 
FabioPorkpie said:
The Mail and Sun are working on their headlines as we speak -

‘EXCLUSIVE! Think the PPE scandal was bad???
Well today we can reveal a Labour junior councillor‘s son stockpiled 48 bog rolls and bought 2 hand sanitisers when Tesco was limiting it to one per customer, thus proving the shameful hypocrisy of Starmer’s Labour. We must not allow these crooks into power!’
By special investigative journalist B. Johnson.
Click to expand...
It will be this won't it? I remember when there was one Tory scandal, Possibly £37 billion wasted on test and trace but it's hard to keep up., and the RWNJ media response was "yeah, well Angela Raynor claimed £139 airpods on expenses".

The Usual Tory shills could then shake they heads and go "these politicians, they are all the same. What's to be done?"

Or Scott Benton last week, to which the Tories immediately responded with something Tony Blair did 27 years ago. I almost don't want an election because the campaign is going to be so horrible.
 
LessoftheLip said:
Absolutely sickening


:mad:
Click to expand...
Dreadful greedy contemptible bast#ards....
I hope they get prosecuted for something relating to fraud...
Tricky one when they've not fraudulently obtained the money ...but the procurement tender process was clearly criminal and all involved should be prosecuted

This has made me sooooo f%%%%%% angry...when you think how hard the average person is struggling to pay bills put petrol in the car

Scummy greedy self serving ars%holes...

They should be made to return it nd put it into schools /NHS...and face prosecution

We have people going to court for theft of coffee...butter....meat....the injustice of the rich getting richer has never been felt more
 
dooderooni said:
Her husband set up a company specifically to cash in on the need for PPE. She endorsed that company in the knowledge that it had just been set up and it was in no way proven able to supply said PPE in the way companies such as Arco were.
For me that is criminal behaviour from them both. They could have been transparent about their involvement from day 1 and it still wouldn't have changed the fact that they were in no way an established PPE vendor.
If anything, the government should have been contacting businesses who were already set up and established and moving hell and earth to help them ramp up supply.
No, the Tory way is to let your mates profit be they MP's, Lords or ex-pub landlords.
Click to expand...
It's worse than that. She recommended the company before it existed
 
FishofContemplation said:
Yeah but finny’s question was what SHE had done illegally. Any alleged breach of registration rules by him is on him and if it meets the criminal standard, he should be charged. Any allegation the goods were counterfeit is a matter of civil law for the supposed legitimate owner of the intellectual property. If the goods were not fit for purpose, the government shouldn’t have paid for them. But none of this is an allegation of unlawful activity by her. Still less, an allegation of criminal activity by her.
Click to expand...

From what I can gather the counterfeiting was in the certificatation around the standards the items claimed to of met as they didn’t. I think this is where the fraud allegation comes from, it wasn’t relating to trademarks or branding so not civil.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top