His name was apparently missing from the electoral register between December 2004 and January last year. This feels odd, especially as it covers a general election period.
When parties receive a donation which they are prohibited from accepting, the have 30 days from the date the donation was received to return it, otherwise they are at risk of forfeiture. UKIP never has returned the money. They say they never realised that the donations were ineligible.
The money wouldn't get returned to Bown. It would go to the Treasury.
UKIP says the forfeiture would be disproportionate punishment because it didn't know that the donations weren't eligible. But breaking the law by mistake isn't usually a good defence unless intention is essential to the offence, which it isn't here.
UKIP wants strict compliance with auditing standards when it comes to the EU and its institutions, so it's not on awfully firm ground.
But confiscation does seem draconian. Yet what is the alternative? If they're just told to return the donations, the money will doubtless simply be donated again and UKIP will have suffered no penalty greater than embarrassment.
So that's probably why the law is as it is.
The Electoral Commission has doubtless decided that it is not for it to decide to waive such a penalty when the amount is so large. What sort of precedent would that create for the larger parties? Any major leniency should be exercised by a court, not by officials.
It's a tricky call for the magistrates.
Meanwhile, Richard North provides some oh so helpful context.
Under siege last weekend from two Sunday newspapers, and with further investigations threatened, from the police (over certain sexual irregularities) and from the EU's anti-fraud office, OLAF, it is no understatement to say that the party is not having a happy time of things at the moment.
No wonder Nigel Farage has been seen tired and emotional in Strasbourg recently.
0 comments:
Post a Comment