If we were to grade the recent rash of controversies over MP's expenses, Derek Conway's effort was probably the most memorable. Just to remind us; Derek Conway paid his son, who was a student at the University of Newcastle, £40,000 as his researcher over 3 years. No records of the work his son did were kept, giving rise to the allegation that he did no work at all as a researcher. The Standards and Privileges Committee in Westminster judged that this was "at least an improper use of parliamentary allowances" or "at worst, a serious diversion of public funds".
What I would like to do here is to imagine that that there is to be a police investigation. This is not to say I believe Derek Conway is guilty of any misconduct. What I am interested as an excercise is seeing problems they would the police face - the sorts of evidence they would require, the processes they would need to go through. Remember what the definition of fraud is? By way of deception to dishonestly appropriate property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it. If this was a straight theft case, you would first get the evidence that showed property was permanently deprived - e.g. your TV was stolen. But in fraud cases it isn't so simple. You have to demonstrate not only that property was taken which shouldn't have been, but that is was done 'knowingly'.
It's that 'knowingly' part that is the hardest, and it can only be proven with good, hard evidence. In Conway's case he could claim that his son did do the work, but that he hadn't thought to do any records of what his son did for him, essentially copping for the charge of negligence in following procedure. But let's say you want to prove the 'knowingly', and go for a higher charge, what would you need?
The fact that his son is at university in far off location helps. Derek Conway claimed that his son would go up and down from Newcaste "like a fiddlers elbow". The first thing you do is to interview Conway under caution (IUC)to get him to tell us more details about this. If he co-operates at the IUC, the questions you ask are how often does your son come down? How does he travel? Dose he always use the same form of transport? How often do you visit? Ultimately, it wouldn't matter what Conway said, the important thing is that the police asked it. If Conway turns round and tells you that his son always travels by train, ask how the tickets are booked - it's likely to be by card. If he says car, then check the mileage against what it showed on its last service - it's a long way from Newcastle to Conway's home constituency, and there will be debits at petrol stations to match that mileage, possibly even some on the journey home. If he goes No Comment, then it doesn't really matter. Anything Conway comes up with afterwards by way of an explanation holds little credibility. And even if Conway said that the way his son visited varied it should be okay - you have three years to look back through, there should be an obvious pattern.
If the police weren't satisfied with what they heard, then they could IUC the son, and see if the stories match. If they agree on a fabricated story together, when you conduct an IUC there will be cracks in the story miles wide. All it takes is a few questions, because the agreed story between two people is usually very simple, and lacking details. The story usually falls apart after a few minutes, and charges of conspiracy usually follow.
The police could also look at some of the research Conway's son was supposed to have done. First, you ask him to give examples of work his son has done. The fact he kept no record doesn't matter - this is where you are looking to catch him out. If he gives you some examples, then all you need to do is look into those. If he can't remember, then unfortunately, you will probably have to consider looking at every piece of research done in his office in the past 3 years, in order to rule out what the son couldn't have done. If Conway has any other researchers, firstly you pin down exactly what they did. You would look at linking certain queries to phonecalls made - a phonecall from a researcher matching to that of a correspondent's MP's letter, for example. And then once you have accounted for everything linked to those researchers, what is left could be that done by Conway's son. You would also want to spend some time with the researchers - get to know them one-on-one, chat with them, charm them. See what happens when you mention the son's name when everyone is out of earshot. What you want ideally is witnesses, but what would be equally useful is if one of them gives you an indication where to look. Or you could go in heavy handed and scare the willies out of them to get them to talk - whichever works. I tend to prefer the former myself.
As in all cases, it largely depends on what the suspect wants to do. Admission usually means lesser charges when you go to court (usually up to 30% off a charge if someone pleads guilty). Sometimes a chat between the defense and prosecution solicitors can agree a lesser charge in return for full co-operation - because it saves valuable police and CPS time. But if the police didn't get an admission and had to go out and get some hard evidence, they are far less likely to compromise at court. But I hope this post has given you some insight into the complications of an investigation - sometimes it's not just proving what they have done as what they couldn't have done. And it all relates back to what the defendant first told you - if you can disprove anything they said, then you have them.
No comments:
Post a Comment