The Return of the Vampire of Finance

by **antiaristo** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 4:19 pm

byrne, Thank you. It's important to me to know that others are following what I'm doing. slim, The funny thing is that this is STILL on the front page of Guardian Unlimited. It's now five hours since they cut off comments, which is what the Newsblog is supposed to be all about. I've been watching the updates to the Gus O'Donnell to investigate story and they have been steadily worsening from Jowell's perspective. This is where we stand now. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Sir Gus to probe Jowell dealings Press Association Tuesday February 28, 2006 5:48 PM Cabinet Secretary Sir Gus O'Donnell is investigating Culture Secretary Tessa Jowell's financial affairs as her Cabinet career looked increasingly precarious. Prime Minister Tony Blair's official spokesman said: "Tessa Jowell has made clear how much she emphasises that she wants to be sure everything she has done is in keeping with the Ministerial Code - therefore facts have to be established." Sir Gus is "establishing the facts" to enable him to respond to a letter from shadow Commons leader Theresa May. She had asked him whether there was a conflict of interest under the Ministerial Code raised by Ms Jowell's financial affairs. The Culture Secretary authorised a loan of about £400,000 against the house she jointly owns with her husband, international lawyer David Mills, which was allegedly repaid with a "bribe" he was given by Italian premier Silvio Berlusconi. Ms Jowell denies any impropriety or that the money came from Mr Berlusconi. Mr Mills says that admissions he made about the cash were either a ruse or forced from him by hostile Italian police interrogators. The tangled affair took a new twist today with No 10's disclosure of what amounts to an inquiry by Sir Gus into the details of the circumstances of the swiftly-repaid loan. Mr Blair's spokesman said: "Theresa May wrote to him so he has to establish the facts anyway. I think the questions that have been asked, it's inevitable that facts have to be established." Asked directly if there was now a Cabinet Secretary's inquiry into Ms Jowell's affairs the spokesman replied: "He's establishing the facts before he replies to Theresa May." Mr Blair's spokesman declined to say who Sir Gus had spoken to, saying he would not provide a "running commentary".<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0,,-5653448,00.html">www.guardian.co.uk/uklate...48,00.html</a> It's an inquiry, but they don't want to call it an inquiry. The spokesman for No 10 sounds more and more like Scott McClennan, no? Elsewhere, Dr Tony Wright has suddenly found his voice! (ref my letter to Paul Braithwaite, copied to Dr Tony Wright)

by **antiaristo** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 4:58 pm

I'm re-posting my comment to the Guardian here <a href="http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/news/archives/2006/02/28/bush_and_berlusconi_do_breakfast.html">blogs.guardian.co.uk/news...kfast.html</a> Let's see what happens

by **pfredricks** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 5:38 pm

Craig Murray has a good piece up on the Jowell/Mills affair. I'll just post the following snip: Now for something else you won’t find in the mainstream media. Mills was under long term surveillance by the Serious Fraud Office for numerous dubious financial transactions. Approximately nine years ago, his office was actually raided by the SFO. As the investigation drew to a close, New Labour came to power. An inside source tells me that SFO staff believed they had a good case, and wondered whether his friendship with the new Prime Minister Blair had any bearing on it not coming to court. A Sunday Times Insight investigation into Mills was spiked by the editors. So these current peculiar financial dealings do not drop out of a clear blue sky. A lot of taxpayers’ money has been spent investigating Mills before. He is well dodgy. <a href="http://www.craigmurray.co.uk/">www.craigmurray.co.uk/</a> Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=pfredricks>pfredricks</A> at: 2/28/06 2:41 pm

by **antiaristo** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 5:53 pm

PF, That's very interesting. Did you see this earlier in the thread? His sister Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dame Barbara Mills, DBE, QC Dame Barbara Mills, DBE, QC is The Adjudicator for the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise, having been from 1992 to 1998, the Director of Public Prosecutions. As Director of the Serious Fraud Office Dame Barbara dealt with the BCCI case. In 1986 she was a DTI inspector under the Financial Services Act and has been a member of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, a Legal Assessor to the General Medical Council and a member of the Parole Board amongst others -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- <a href="http://www.competition-commission.org.uk/our_peop/members/all_members/biogs/barbaramills.htm">www.competition-commissio...amills.htm</a>

by **madeupname452** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 6:29 pm

img noborder]<a href="http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/steve_bell/2006/02/28/bell512.jpg[/img">image.guardian.co.uk/sys-...2.jpg[/img</a>]

by **madeupname452** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 6:30 pm

<img src="http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/steve_bell/2006/02/28/bell512.jpg" style="border:0;"/>

by **antiaristo** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 6:44 pm

"Bung" is part of the vernacular of English football (soccer). I think it was first used about the late Brian Clough, as in "Brian likes a bung" (bribe) It is also used in chemistry as a stopper for a glass vessel.

by **antiaristo** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 10:07 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Italian prosecutors have reportedly claimed that the Home Office harmed their inquiry into David Mills, and a move to extradite him, by revealing sensitive information to the Berlusconi government. According to The Times, the prosecutors say that by passing to the Italian justice ministry written evidence relating to the proposed extradition, the Government had spread "reserved information" among a large number of people, undermining the secrecy of their investigation. According to the paper, prosecutors made a tentative request to extradite Mr Mills in December 2004. But the Home Office responded by going to the Ministry of Justice in Rome - via the Italian embassy in London - rather than dealing with the prosecuting authorities. It is claimed that that meant they involved the government of Mr Berlusconi, which had a direct interest in the case. The Home Office denied any wrongdoing. In a statement it said: "In late 2004, the Serious Fraud Office received a request from the Milan Prosecutor for legal advice about the circumstances in which David Mills could be extradited under UK law, based upon possible charges against him. "The request was passed to the Crown Prosecution Service, who took legal advice which was passed by the Home Office to the Italian Embassy in May 2005, since extradition requests are normally handled on diplomatic channels.<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0,,-5655228,00.html">www.guardian.co.uk/uklate...28,00.html</a> <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Dame Barbara Mills, DBE, QC Dame Barbara Mills, DBE, QC is The Adjudicator for the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise, having been from 1992 to 1998, the Director of Public Prosecutions. As Director of the Serious Fraud Office Dame Barbara dealt with the BCCI case. In 1986 she was a DTI inspector under the Financial Services Act and has been a member of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, a Legal Assessor to the General Medical Council and a member of the Parole Board amongst others<hr></blockquote> The Director of Public Prosecutions is in charge of the Crown Prosecution Service. It's as cozy as Bertie and Dermot running Ireland, no?

by **antiaristo** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 12:52 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>1.15pm udpate Jowell inquiry will extend to Home Office Matthew Tempest, political correspondent Wednesday March 1, 2006 Tony Blair today confirmed that the investigation into Tessa Jowell's affairs will extend to any role played by the Home Office in the extradition of her husband. As the Conservative leader, David Cameron, piled on the pressure on Ms Jowell with his first intervention in the row over her husband's business relationship with Silvio Berlusconi, the prime minister confirmed at question time that the cabinet secretary would examine "any allegations that are made". The Tory leader did not bring up the affair at PMQs, but a Tory backbencher, Richard Bacon, did. Earlier this morning Mr Cameron raised newspaper allegations of Home Office meddling in Italian attempts to extradite Ms Jowell's husband, international lawyer and tax adviser David Mills. Downing Street insisted that ministers had not been in anyway involved in the Italian extradition request. The latest twist in the complex saga of Mr Mills' financial transactions saw newspapers today claim that the Home Office undermined the secrecy of their investigation into Mr Mills by passing written evidence relating to his extradition to the Italian justice ministry. "This was handled in the normal way," the PM's official spokesman said. "I think the criticism would have been if we had handled this in any other way. "This was dealt with official to official. Ministers were not consulted. "The Home Office could not have been clearer in saying that normal procedures were followed. These are internationally accepted normal procedures." The spokesman said that the procedures had been agreed internationally in order to prevent "maverick prosecutors" seeking the extradition of individuals from another country. He added: "In this country the tradition is that someone is innocent unless they are proved guilty. Because the Italian justice system operates in a different way that doesn't mean that we will deviate from that nor should we." With storm clouds gathering over Ms Jowell's career - she signed a joint mortgage statement which allegedly may have helped her husband release money to reinvest payments he received - the PM's spokesman said that he was not aware that Ms Jowell had at any stage offered her resignation over the matter. Today Mr Cameron for the first time raised newspaper allegations of Home Office meddling in Italian attempts to extradite Mr Mills. He said: "We have an inquiry going on under Gus O'Donnell; I think that inquiry needs to be widened to cover some of the allegations that are in the newspapers about the Home Office blocking extradition and things like that. The vice-chair of the Tory party, Nigel Evans, declared he would be formally writing to the Home Office to ask about its role in the Italian investigation, calling the convoluted affair "murkier and murkier and all we're getting is smoke and mirrors". "I would like to know from the Home Office what they have done in their dealings with Italian prosecutors," he said. The MP for the Ribble Valley said Ms Jowell's position was "untenable" if she did not answer outstanding questions about how she paid off her mortgage. "If she doesn't answer the questions and she doesn't answer them properly, her position is untenable," he said. "Did she know about the 'gift' and if she knew it wasn't from Berlusconi, does she know its provenance? "Did she register the 'gift' with the permanent secretary as she is obliged to do under the ministerial code? Did she register the 'gift' with the Inland Revenue? "It gets murkier and murkier, and all we're getting is smoke and mirrors." Mr Mills is facing questions over an alleged £350,000 bribe from Mr Berlusconi, which Italian prosecutors claim was a payment for helping the premier escape corruption charges. He has denied the money came from Mr Berlusconi. The Home Office insisted last night that no ministers were involved in any of the decisions relating to Mr Mills. In a statement it said: "In late 2004 the Serious Fraud Office received a request from the Milan prosecutor for legal advice about the circumstances in which David Mills could be extradited under UK law, based upon possible charges against him. The request was passed to the Crown Prosecution Service who took legal advice which was passed by the Home Office to the Italian embassy in May 2005 since extradition requests are normally handled on diplomatic channels." Ms Jowell denies any impropriety or that the money came from Mr Berlusconi. Mr Mills today insisted there was nothing suspicious about his mortgage arrangements. And he dismissed as "bollocks" claims that he had suborned his wife into assisting in the processing of a bribe. Mr Mills told the Daily Telegraph that he wanted to scotch the rumours that he was using the mortgage to launder money.<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://politics.guardian.co.uk/labour/story/0,,1720742,00.html">politics.guardian.co.uk/l...42,00.html</a> In this country the tradition is that someone is innocent unless they are proved guilty Put that together with "Government by Inquiry" that never resolves anything, and you have the perfect system for keeping your friends out of prison.

by **antiaristo** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 2:36 pm

The story above has now been updated with this addition <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Today, Lord Armstrong, the former cabinet secretary who served Margaret Thatcher in the 80s, said that, as a civil servant, Sir Gus should not be asked to investigate the allegations. "It seems to me that in these matters the role of the cabinet secretary should be above all to advise the prime minister privately and in confidence and then for the prime minister to make his judgment," he told BBC Radio 4's the World at One programme. "I don't myself feel very comfortable with the idea that the cabinet secretary is used as a kind of public auditor on these matters. I think it puts him into an invidious and difficult position. "In past times it has very often been done by a senior minister or by the chief whip. I think that is a better way of dealing with it in that the politician would then be judging the politicians."<hr></blockquote> That is the same Lord Armstrong that pursued Peter Wright to Australia in an attempt to prevent publication of Spycatcher. He gave evidence under oath in court. He was caught lying. When confronted in court with his turpitude he admitted being "economical with the truth". That is the origin of that expression. Similarly when Mary Archer was confronted with her husband's lies she said he had "a gift for inaccurate precis." But of course this is Britain. Here a chap is innocent until proven guilty. Tell that to the poor bastards in Belmarsh. For years.

by **antiaristo** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 3:39 pm

Could the power of the Internet be the reason my fellow posters are getting their knickers in a twist on the other thread? <blockquote>Quote:<hr>4.45pm udpate Jowell inquiry will not extend to Home Office Michael White and Matthew Tempest Wednesday March 1, 2006 Tony Blair has not widened the scope of the cabinet secretary's inquiry into Tessa Jowell's financial affairs to include Italian claims that the Home Office obstructed attempts to extradite her husband, David Mills, the official Downing St spokesman insisted this afternoon - despite the prime minister's apparent remarks at question time today. The terms of Sir Gus O'Donnell's investigation, which may produce a report as early as tomorrow or Friday, are a "matter for him," No 10 said. "But I would be very surprised if he did not take into account the fact that there has been a categorical denial from the Home Office" - which has not been challenged - the spokesman said. In answer to Tory MP Richard Bacon, who asked about claims of Home Office obstruction, Mr Blair told MPs that "we will of course examine any allegations that are made". By that he meant future challenges - not ones that have already been denied - No 10 told political reporters. The Home Office responded to media reports by saying there was nothing abnormal in the way it responded to the Italian prosecutors inquiry - in replying via the Italian government even though its head - Silvio Berlusconi - stood to be involved in the case. If individual prosecutors could obtain extradition of individuals from another country it would soon lead "to circumstances no one would tolerate," No 10 said. Mr Blair retains " full confidence" in Ms Jowell, the spokesman added.<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://politics.guardian.co.uk/labour/story/0,,1720742,00.html">politics.guardian.co.uk/l...42,00.html</a>

by **antiaristo** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 5:03 pm

A bit more detail from the Times. I think this was published before No 10 reversed itself. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Jowell inquiry to expand to take in new claims By Jenny Booth, Richard Owen in Milan, Philip Webster and Sam Coates Tony Blair today conceded that the inquiry into Tessa Jowell should expand to take in claims that the Home Office interfered in an attempt to extradite her husband to Italy. Sir Gus O’Donnell, the Cabinet Secretary, is reviewing whether Ms Jowell broke the ministerial code in relation to her husband's Italian business dealings. Today David Cameron demanded that Sir Gus's remit should expand to include allegations - reported in The Times today - that the Home Office acted improperly over an Italian extradition request for her husband, David Mills. "I think that inquiry needs to be widened to cover some of the allegations that are in the newspapers about the Home Office blocking extradition and things like that," said the Tory leader. Mr Blair responded by telling the Commons at Prime Minister's Questions that Sir Gus's inquiry would look at the new claims. “He will of course examine any allegations that are made and reply to them fully.” The Cabinet Secretary is now expected to report tomorrow on whether Ms Jowell, the Culture Secretary, failed to live up to the standards of ministerial behaviour. Italian prosecution documents seen by The Times allege that Home Office blatantly jeopardised an investigation designed to bring Mr Mills to trial. The prosecutors claimed that the Home Office had harmed their inquiry and a move to extradite Mr Mills, by revealing "extremely sensitive information" to the Berlusconi Government — the targets of the probe. In a furious letter to a senior Home Office official, the prosecutors alleged that by passing to the Italian Justice Ministry written evidence relating to the proposed extradition, the British Government had "spread reserved information among a large number of officers and people . . . the damage to investigative secrecy is blatant," they wrote. By informing the Justice Ministry, the Home Office had directly involved the Berlusconi administration — the very people who would fear damage from Mr Mills’s extradition. Simultaneously, the Serious Fraud Office suddenly stopped dealing directly with the prosecutors in Milan, instead sending evidence in "unsealed packages" via the Berlusconi Government, it was claimed in a letter from the prosecutors seen by The Times and the Italian newspaper La Stampa. However, the Home Office insisted last night that all correct procedures were followed and no minister was involved in any of the decisions.<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2064363,00.html">www.timesonline.co.uk/art...63,00.html</a>

by **antiaristo** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 8:40 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Exclusive Cabinet chief will clear Jowell, but Tories call for wider inquiry By Philip Webster, Political Editor, for Times Online Tessa Jowell will survive as Culture Secretary tomorrow after an internal Whitehall inquiry concludes that she did not break the ministerial code of conduct over a complex financial deal involving her London home. But after a torrid week in which the media spotlight has been thrown on the personal affairs of Ms Jowell and her husband David Mills, the inquiry will disclose that she did not refer to her permanent secretary a loan deal in 2004 of several hundred thousand pounds. Sir Gus O’Donnell, the Cabinet Secretary, will report amid confusion in the Government over how to respond to allegations, reported by The Times today, that the Home Office jeopardised the Italian investigation into Mr Mills by passing on information to the Rome Ministry of Justice. After Tony Blair appeared to promise an inquiry into the claims, No 10 backtracked and said the matter had been dealt with by the Home Office. Up until now it has been assumed that the loan taken out in 2004 was to enable Mr Mills to bring into Britain a payment of £350,000 which originated in Italy in 1999. Italian prosecutors have claimed that sum was a "bribe" to Mr Mills, an international lawyer, for helping Silvio Berlusconi in two corruption cases. However, Ms Jowell’s explanation to the inquiry was that the 2004 charge was to enable the couple to pay off the tax on the payment which Mr Mills appeared until then to have regarded as gift. She is understood to have told Sir Gus that she knew nothing until 2004 about the original gift or payment and could not therefore have declared it before then. When she did learn about it, she still did not declare it to her permanent secretary because it was not a gift and therefore a conflict of interest had not arisen. She has insisted throughout that the money was not from Signor Berlusconi. Ms Jowell’s explanation appears to have been accepted by the Cabinet Secretary. Tony Blair will fully back Ms Jowell tomorrow and appeal for her to be allowed to get on with her job. Sir Gus has been unable to investigate the source of the money paid to Mr Mills because that is currently an issue for the Italian courts. Ms Jowell is expected to issue a statement explaining her actions after Sir Gus’s findings are released tomorrow, in a letter to Theresa May, the Shadow Culture Secretary. The Conservatives tonight called for Sir Gus to give a judgment on the behaviour of the Home Office in the case of Mr Mills. This followed complaints from the Italian prosecuting authorities that the Home Office had jeopardised its case against Mr Mills by revealing sensitive information to the Berlusconi government - the target of the probe. In the Commons Tony Blair had appeared to promise an inquiry into the allegations against the Home Office but Downing Street later insisted this had been dealt with by the department itself. It had claimed that normal procedures were followed when it dealt with Italian embassy in 2005 because extradition requests were handled by diplomatic channels. Charles Clarke, the Home Secretary, said: "The allegations of the Italian prosecution are completely untrue. "The fact is that there is a well established extradition procedure which operates with Italy as with other countries and we would follow all normal procedures. "No request for extradition has come from Italy at this stage and hasn’t done at any previous stage - but the fact is that the allegations that we’ve been in any sense un-co-operative are completely false." The Prime Minister said in the Commons: "We will, of course, examine any allegations that are made and reply to them fully." But No 10 later said Mr Blair was not indicating the extradition allegations would be investigated. The Prime Minister’s official spokesman said: "He didn’t widen the scope of the inquiry. All he was saying was that as allegations are made, of course Government will respond to allegations." David Davis, the Shadow Home Secretary, asked Sir Gus to look into the propriety of the Home Office’s actions in the Mills case, which he described as "at best incompetent or at worst improper". Noting Mr Blair’s comments at Prime Minister’s Questions, Mr Davis wrote: "The Italian prosecuting authorities claim that the Home Office or its agencies effectively breached confidentiality of the investigations relating to a serious corruption case." He backed the prosecutors’ argument that the Home Office should have dealt directly with them on the matter, rather than go through the Italian Embassy. "Clearly this is sensible," said Mr Davis. "If this case involved a British government minister, the Home Office and the prosecuting authorities would normally take rigorous action to ensure that they did not receive privileged information that would give unfair advantage to that minister. "The Italian authorities assert that this evidence has bearing on at least one other case and imply that the Home Office’s actions could jeopardise their judicial process. "If true, this action by the Home Office meets neither the letter nor the spirit of proper practice. Accordingly it is either at best incompetent or at worst improper. I would be grateful for your judgment on this."  <hr></blockquote> <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2064363,00.html">www.timesonline.co.uk/art...63,00.html</a> This makes no rational sense. But it makes political sense. The Government will publish a White Paper on the BBC within the next two weeks. Jowell is the minister responsible. For her to be forced out at this stage would be a disaster. A device exists that can solve this political dilemma. It is called the Treason Felony Act. Gus O'Donnell is subject to that act like everybody else in the bureaucracy. He has no alternative but to obey. I feel sorry for him. He was my chess captain at school, and a fine footballer. His real name is Austin, which he hates. The Treason Felony Act must be nullified.

by **antiaristo** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 9:17 pm

How will they square this with the previous story? <blockquote>Quote:<hr>David Mills 'in secret talks to cut a deal' over claims of corruption From Richard Owen in Milan and Sam Coates DAVID MILLS is being urged to accept a plea bargain with Italian prosecutors in which he would give evidence against Silvio Berlusconi, his business associate for 20 years, and even avoid prison if found guilty of an offence, The Times has learnt. Mr Mills’s lawyers said yesterday that they had been holed up in Switzerland in discussions with the multimillionaire husband of Tessa Jowell, the Culture, Media and Sport Secretary. This could result in a symbolic sentence in return for revealing “the whole truth”. Next week a judge in Milan will announce whether he is to charge Mr Mills and Signor Berlusconi over a £350,000 sum allegedly paid by the Italian leader to the British lawyer to lie for him in court. Mr Mills has claimed in testimony that he was given £350,000 as a “gift” in 1999. He denies any wrongdoing. The prosecution says that the money came from a Berlusconi associate in 1997 shortly before he was due to give evidence in a corruption trial. Yesterday Fabio de Pasquale and Alfredo Robledo, the Milan prosecutors in the case, said that a plea bargain was under discussion. Federico Cecconi, Mr Mills’s chief defence lawyer in Milan, confirmed that it was “an op- tion”. Signor Cecconi disclosed that he had spent the past three days in talks in the canton of Ticino in Switzerland, close to the Swiss-Italian border. Legal sources said that if Mr Mills were guilty of an offence and collaborated, he could expect a symbolic sentence of less than a year in prison — possibly suspended. Sources close to the investigation said they believed that Mr Mills could provide evidence damaging to the Italian leader, especially if he agreed to plea bargaining. Signor Berlusconi’s defence has repeatedly described Mr Mills as a “hostile witness”. The prosecutors deposited their final dossier with the Milan judge on February 16, and defence lawyers have until March 7 to make observations and objections before the judge decides whether to send Mr Mills and Signor Berlusconi for trial. The Italian leader claims that the timetable is calculated to influence elections on April 9, when he faces a tough battle against the Centre Left, led by Romano Prodi. However, legal sources said that prosecutors were “in a hurry” not because of the election but because, under a law passed by the Berlusconi Government, the time limit for a trial to be concluded has been reduced from fifteen years since the original crime was committed to ten years. Because the alleged bribe to Mr Mills was paid in 1997, the “statute of limitations” will expire in 2007, giving the judge relatively little time to hear the case and reach a verdict. Last night Mr Mills explained that there had been various reasons behind the series of mortgages he had taken out over 15 years from 1987. Some were taken out to raise funds for home improvements while, on other occasions, mortgage swaps were carried out to maximise investment yields as new offers came on the market. He said: “I want to scotch utterly and completely any idea that any mortgage was designed to launder money.” <hr></blockquote> <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2063777,00.html">www.timesonline.co.uk/art...77,00.html</a>

by **antiaristo** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 9:34 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>The Times March 01, 2006 Allegations were set out in request to search home and office By Sam Coates THE gravity of the allegations against David Mills have been set out in another document by Italian prosecutors for the British authorities, obtained by The Times. These allegations are contained in a letter to the Home Office in January 2006, requesting a police search of David Mills’s family home and office. The allegations that follow have not been tested in court and remain unproven. Many people, including Mr Mills and Silvio Berlusconi, believe that the prosecutors’ investigation is politically motivated. They point to the timing of the case, weeks before the Italian general election on April 9. In the letter, marked strictly confidential and delivered by hand “considering the sensitive nature of this case”, they outlined their findings. The 18-page document says that this is the “19th supplement” to a letter sent in July 2001. It contains allegations of obstruction, cover-up and money laundering. Here are excerpts: “ [Britain has helped with an investigation into] a serious and complex fraud regarding the purchasing of television rights by the company Mediaset — a company listed on the stock market with Silvio Berlusconi as its most important shareholder. “In short . . . from the mid-Eighties until at least 1999, offshore companies secretly controlled by the Berlusconi Group and other screen companies purchased broadcasting rights from American studios and sold them to Mediaset at greatly inflated prices. The proceeds inflated through this fraud were laundered in Switzerland, Monaco and the Bahamas. “In the final phases of the proceedings relating to the television rights fraud, evidence was acquired in the UK with regard to a [£350,00<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/alien.gif ALT="0]"> payment made to Mr Mills at the end of 1997 to induce him to state falsehoods in the trial against Berlusconi, which were in progress at that time before the Court of Milan. [There follow two instances relating to hearings in November 1997 and January 1998 concerning allegations of corruption and money laundering.] “Steps have been taken to throw light on the sum of $2,050,000 received by Mills on July 23, 1997. Unfortunately, despite the reference “Turriff”, the Turriff Trust documents acquired in Guernsey show no trace. [Turiff is owned by Paolo Marcucci, a client of Mr Mills, and who denies that such a transaction took place.] “A few days before “complying” to a notice served to him in October 1996, various documents were sent by Mills to Rawlinson & Hunter (Mills’s accountants). In 1997 documents were sent to Rawlinson & Hunter, Isle of Man. The Authorities were in no way informed of all of this, although, I repeat, a search warrant had been issued against Edsaco (a company of which Mills was a director) and Mills himself had been served with a notice. From 1996 to the present day, Mills has been requested to produce documents, which he has done in an incomplete and misleading manner. “We should take into account his behaviour, which reveals confidence in his own powers and limited respect for the Authorities.” “At first even Mills admitted the facts. A few months later he changed his story, involving another client — Diego Attanasio [the shipping magnate who Mills said gave him the £350,00<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/alien.gif ALT="0]"> — and claiming that he gave him the money” “In addition to the numerous episodes of a lack of co-operation or obstructionism, there was a recent attempt to interfere in the investigations — circumstances which negatively influence the assessment of his character.” <hr></blockquote> <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2063609,00.html">www.timesonline.co.uk/art...09,00.html</a> And Tessa Jowell knew nothing?

The Return of the Vampire of Finance

Re: Jowell Bribed by Berlusconi?

Fighting Censorship

re

Re: re

ceci n'est pas un bung

sorry bad link corrected

Translation

Re: The Return of the Vampire of Finance

The Mills Mafia

Re: The Mills Mafia

Oops!

Re: Oops!

Closing Ranks?

Re: Closing Ranks?

The Charges Against Mills

Who is online