Britannia Radio

19 Oct 09 The SFO Funks EU Corruption Again     The Serious Fraud Office has finally admitted it will not investigate the criminal waste of British taxpayers’ money by successive British governments who continue to finance the provably corrupt European Union.   Despite the small mountain of new evidence provided in June this year, the new director of the SFO, Richard Alderman, has rejected an invitation to open a criminal investigation.   There follows an exchange of emails with Mr Alderman over the last few days.  The slight delay between them was caused by my waiting for the promised signed hard copy of Mr Alderman’s letter by mail.  It never arrived, perhaps for his own good reasons, or because of embarrassing incompetence in his office.     E-mail from richard.alderman@sfo.gsi.gov.uk   to Ashley Mote Direct Line +44 (0)20 7239 7101 [wrong] PO Box 101 [wrong] Liphook [wrong] Hampshire GU30 7WY [wrong]   1 October 2009   Dear Mr Mote   I apologise for the delay in advising you of the outcome of our review of the material you provided following your meeting with Paul Craig of this office.   I realise that you have grave concerns about fraudulent practices against the budget of the European Union (EU) and the complicity of UK officials in what you consider to be substandard accounting procedures. In his letter to you of 4 November 2004, my predecessor Robert Wardle explained the statutory role of the SFO and the need for any investigation to establish sufficient evidence of criminality to justify a prosecution. Mr Wardle also talked about the way that the SFO works with OLAF since that office has the primary responsibility for dealing with frauds against EU funds.   Mr Wardle invited you to let us know if you had any evidence where an investigation in this country would be appropriate. I am grateful to you for forwarding material to us. This has now been reviewed but I regret to have to tell you that we have not been able to find material that leads us to suspect that serious or complex fraud justifying action by us has taken place.  On this basis we are unable to take any further action in relation to this matter.   Yours sincerely RICHARD ALDERMAN Director Doc No RA/357/AJ       Reply to Richard Alderman, director, Serious Fraud Office, London.    Dear Mr Alderman   You will not be surprised to learn that the hard copy, supposedly sent by mail after your email of 1 October, failed to arrive.   The personal information you used was wrong in four important particulars (see above).   Worryingly, this throws some doubt about the accuracy of all else you have deduced from my submission to the SFO in early June of material showing systemic and institutionalised fraud and corruption in the European Union.   You must have struggled hard over the intervening months to find reasons for a second rejection.  They are not convincing.  Worse, you have apparently been reduced to falling back on Mr Wardle’s original grounds, despite the fact that you know – and you know that I know - he had not so much as opened the files.   No wonder you insisted on my seeing a member of your staff, rather than talk directly to you.    Let me remind you of two exchanges I had with your colleague Paul Craig after our lengthy and thorough meeting in June and the handling over of considerable quantities of new material.    AM:  Have I been wasting my time here today?   PC:  No.   AM:  Is it a criminal offence to pass public money to an organisation known to be corrupt?   PC:  Yes.   May I also remind you of the Government Resources Act 2000 which requires under Article 9 (1) (b) that the Treasury shall prepare in respect of each financial year a set of accounts for [functions] entirely or substantially funded from public money.   Section 4 further requires (a) that they present a true and fair view, and (b) conform to generally accepted accounting practice subject to such adaptations as are necessary in the context.   Section 5 further requires having regard to any relevant guidance issued by the Accounting Standards Board Limited or any other body prescribed for the purposes of section 256 of the [1985 c. 6.] Companies Act 1985 (accounting standards).   Your predecessor Robert Wardle wrote to colleagues of mine on 22 February 2005, claiming  "The Serious Fraud Office may investigate or prosecute any criminal involving serious or complex fraud.  That offence must be triable in England, Wales or Northern Ireland.  Having read your letter and in particular having read the evidence presented by Mr Mote and Ms Andreasen [now known to be untrue] I am quite satisfied that there are no grounds to suspect a criminal offence committed in this country which would justify an investigation by this Office.  The matter you raise is essentially political not criminal." The matter my colleagues had raised was “the criminality of huge sums of public money (taxpayers' money) being transferred on a regular basis to an organisation that is provably corrupt, does not keep proper books of accounts and has failed to have its accounts passed by auditors for years on end.  This is against the law for obvious reasons.”   Mr Alderman, as I am sure you must know, Mr Wardle was wrong in the sense that his criterion was too narrow.  He chose to ignore the much more important issue of malfeasance in public office.  Not only is it a criminal offence under common law, but it holds government ministers and officials directly to account for actions which can be shown to be knowingly against the public interest.  How much more evidence do you need of present and past UK governments and officials acquiescing in the continuous funding of EU coffers which the whole world knows are subject to institutionalised fraud and corruption, and about which nothing effective is ever done?   If you deny the relevance of malfeasance, you are effectively saying the British government cannot be held to account in a court of law.  Do I really have to remind you of that great phrase of jurisprudence: "be you ever so high, the law is above you"?   Allow me to revisit some of the other important and relevant facts, given your enthusiasm for hiding behind the EU’s Court of Auditors and OLAF – both of which are poodles of the system and there to maintain the status quo.  Surely you realise that?  If not, I can provide abundant proof.   The Court of Auditors has admitted to me – in public session – that “it is impossible to co-ordinate the finance and accounting systems of the member states”.  Also that “the EU is already too big to audit or control”.   The Court of Auditors has no power to initiate financial investigations and Mr Bruner, the discredited but re-appointed director of OLAF, famously admitted to me – again in public session – that OLAF “does not snoop” on its friends and political masters.  It is, however, positively enthusiastic about snooping on its critics.   The Court of Auditors, and the Chief Accountant of the Commission, have both been forced to admit that the EU’s accounts after the change-over to double-entry accounting had no opening balances, since the previous accounting system had failed to provide any closing balances.  It follows, as night follows day therefore, that the EU’s accounts can never be signed off as a true and fair view, since they have no starting point.  That, too, provides opportunities for corruption which have never been addressed effectively.   The EU’s system of ‘shared management’ of financial responsibility with member states covers over 80 percent of all EU expenditure.  But it is, in reality, no management at all and provides yet another reason why the EU’s accounts can never be signed off as a true and fair view.  I left with Mr Craig much detail demonstrating the deliberate misuse of British taxpayers’ funds and the organised corruption resulting from unenforceable ‘shared management’.   The Commission has been warned repeatedly by accountants and other professional advisors about the systemic failure of so-called ‘shared management’, again often in public session.  The inescapable truth is that the EU and its bureaucrats prefer it that way.  A few days’ public criticism once a year is a small price to pay to sustain a system of massive institutionalised looting of public money, especially when you have access to it.   That is why there is absolutely no sign of International Accounting Standards being applied, let alone enforced, on the EU by its own Commission.     As I said to Mr Craig after our meeting:   “I do understand the huge problem I have put on your desk.  How can you take full account of the facts and - at the same time - try to avoid exploding a gigantic political bomb under the present government?    “How can you do your job with integrity, and - at the same time - avoid bringing the UK's relationship with the EU to a crisis point?   “So let me re-assure you.  There are millions of people in the UK today who, regardless of their view about our membership, at the very least want the UK's relationship with the EU resolved and put on a proper footing, once and for all.  Furthermore, we ordinary people have an absolute right to expect the protection of the law for the tax taken from our hard-earned income.    “I am quite sure you would not allow public opinion to influence your decisions.  But it remains a certainty that positive action by the SFO would be widely applauded to the echo, both in the UK and in many other EU countries.  Quite right too.   “This is not about politics.  It is about what is right and lawful.”     I added a PS:   “Before you and your colleagues allow my message to focus your minds on careers and personal circumstances, as it inevitably will, let me commiserate and re-assure you.  I have been there.  I know what it costs.  And it is worth the terrible personal cost.  I took heart from the knowledge that our parents and grandparents put far more at stake.”     Mr Alderman, your sad and inadequate response was perhaps inevitable – which just makes it all the more unacceptable.  The stakes were just too big for you, weren’t they?    But be in no doubt.  This fight goes on until we win what is right and proper under the law.          I say again, and on good advice – the issue is simple and demonstrable in a UK court of law.  Malfeasance in public office.   yours sincerely Ashley Mote     PS:  You will not be surprised to learn that I shall be publishing this reply on the entirely legitimate grounds that the public interest demands it.