Corrupt MoD official can keep £1.5m

#1
Hello,

I noticed this whilst looking at todays newspaper headlines:

A corrupt civil servant behind one of the biggest frauds in Whitehall history has managed to avoid paying anything towards a £1.5m confiscation order because the Crown Prosecution Service delayed enforcing it for 11 years, the Guardian has learned.
The rest can be found here:

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/whitehall/story/0,,2242887,00.html

tangosix.
 
#2
Jesus Christ, somebody must have taken a bung to lose his paperwork for 11 years.

The article states

In 1993, Foxley, who was earning £25,000 a year, was convicted of taking bribes totalling £1.3m. However, £3.5m was found in his bank accounts.
So that we can assume that the 1.3 was only the tip of the iceberg and perhaps he had partners for whom he took the fall.
(Jack) Straw said in 1995: "I have always maintained he was charged only in respect of a small number of the bribes he took."

Foxley served only two years and returned to his Oxfordshire mansion, with its own swimming pool in Henley-on-Thames. Although his sentence included a further three years in jail if he failed to hand over £1.5m within 18 months, he was never sent back to prison.

The £1.5m million confiscation order did not include his home at the time, which Foxley had transferred into his wife's name before he was charged.
Helping hands methinks
 
#3
armchair_jihad said:
Jesus Christ, somebody must have taken a bung to lose his paperwork for 11 years.
Bet it was next to those CDs.
 
#4
I read the artical in the Guardian earlier this morning and am still Gobsmacked.
john
Do tend to agree with AJ, sumone must have taken a BUNG.
 
#5
The £1.5m million confiscation order did not include his home at the time, which Foxley had transferred into his wife's name before he was charged. The MoD started a separate civil action against Foxley and his son Paul, who were made bankrupt. This action included a freezing order to stop Foxley's son disposing of assets which, they claimed in court papers, were the proceeds of his father's crime.
Bungs allround me thinks.

I am amazed that someone who had 3.5mil in the bank can suddenly be declared bankrupt!

Heads should roll in this because at the end of the day it's OUR cash they haven't bothered their backside to recover.

Jockster
 
#6
This case is still quoted as one of the Mod Plods finest hours. They must be really p1ssed off at this - as am I. Maybe the old barsteward should write a book naming names - I'll bet it would make interesting reading.

Thieving old cnut!
 
#8
I am not a lawyer but if he has been ordered to pay it back and hasn't, why can they not confiscate properties to the value of? I am sure that if I owed more than the value of my house to someone (esp the govt!) I would loose the house...
 
#9
I knew 2 of his sons quite well and something of their family background. I now understand why, as relatively junior officers, one was able to drive a Panther De Ville and the other kept a 40ft yacht in Portugal. I used to think it was my lack of financial acumen which denied me similar goodies. :roll:
 
#10
Xenophon said:
I knew 2 of his sons quite well and something of their family background. I now understand why, as relatively junior officers, one was able to drive a Panther De Ville and the other kept a 40ft yacht in Portugal. I used to think it was my lack of financial acumen which denied me similar goodies. :roll:
Yeh, here's me thinking something similar. There's 3 ways to make a big pile: nick it, get left it or lie on your back and take it. Or of course, you can work for it as most of us do. It really grips my sh1t when thieving twots like this can get away with most of it. IMHO, he's had help somewhere along the line and those people should be named, shamed and brought to justice as well. :twisted:

Rant over for now. Nurse, bring me my cloak, I need to walk in the garden for a while. 8O
 
#11
Xenophon said:
I knew 2 of his sons quite well and something of their family background. I now understand why, as relatively junior officers, one was able to drive a Panther De Ville and the other kept a 40ft yacht in Portugal. I used to think it was my lack of financial acumen which denied me similar goodies. :roll:
And the daughter still has my DPM smock from when she went the Falklands - in 1991 8)
 
#12
Xenophon said:
I knew 2 of his sons quite well and something of their family background. I now understand why, as relatively junior officers, one was able to drive a Panther De Ville and the other kept a 40ft yacht in Portugal. I used to think it was my lack of financial acumen which denied me similar goodies. :roll:
Did a member of his family not get 6 months for destroying evidence?
 
#13
Norfolknchance said:
Xenophon said:
I knew 2 of his sons quite well and something of their family background. I now understand why, as relatively junior officers, one was able to drive a Panther De Ville and the other kept a 40ft yacht in Portugal. I used to think it was my lack of financial acumen which denied me similar goodies. :roll:
I've known the one with the Panther DeVille* very well indeed since 1985, and his 3 military siblings en passant. I met his civvy Bro and Sis but once.

In fact he came to stay with me when his dad was nicked in 1989, and have long regarded him as one of the most trustworthy men I've ever known.

I'll say, from first hand observation of his distress over that first couple of days. that he was in no way aware of his Dad's criminality. I'll also tell you that - since leaving the Army - the man in question has secured his own finances through plain hard work and - as you rightly point out - financial acumen.

I'd advise against the slinging of mud - it mostly comes over as petty jealousy.[hr]*Edited to add this Stonkernote On reflection, I'm not sure that it was even a PdV - I remember it as a rather ostentatious set of kit-car bodywork with a standard Ford engine under the bonnet. If I'm right, that would rather cast doubt on the 40 ft yacht thing, too. 8)
 
#14
First, I think the entire amount should be repaid and the b***er jailed.

However, I wouldn't mind reading his memoirs - the proceeds could be used to help repay the money.

Given the MoD's track record on fraud I think Mr Foxley's brief could have a field day citing embarrassing precedents. Some years ago a question (not rhetorical) was asked of a 2 Star. "What is the greater offence - instructing someone to commit fraud or refusing to obey the order?" The reply was the first is not an offence, the second is. This was upheld by a 4* and successive Ministers for the Armed Forces.
 
#15
bakersfield said:
First, I think the entire amount should be repaid and the b***er jailed.
However, I wouldn't mind reading his memoirs - the proceeds could be used to help repay the money.

Given the MoD's track record on fraud I think Mr Foxley's brief could have a field day citing embarrassing precedents. Some years ago a question (not rhetorical) was asked of a 2 Star. "What is the greater offence - instructing someone to commit fraud or refusing to obey the order?" The reply was the first is not an offence, the second is. This was upheld by a 4* and successive Ministers for the Armed Forces.
No problem with having it repaid but jailing him again for the same offence might have us in front of the ECHR. Now don't get me wrong I am no liberal pinko faggot but........... :D
 
#16
First is clearly an offence - conspiracy, illegal order and probably a whole host of others.

Second is not an offence - "I'm sorry sir, that order is not legal"

I too knew the two brothers - never saw any reason to believe they inherited father's thieving traits. They were also not stupid which is why I am surprised they never asked the question "how can we afford these expensive houses and yacht Dad? - you don't earn that much as a civil servant".

I thought there was an agency set up to recover ill-gotten gains or was that just pish and wind again.
 
#17
Mmm seem to remember a case at APC Glasgow where the 'crims' were given the opportunity to own up 'an no further action'

One of the guilty parties ahd salted away over £2m from pay runs - allegedly! Then owned up to just under 200K, which is why he was asked to resign. I believe he did three months in nick which i think is a worthwhile return? Not that I condone someone robbing my money!

The human race is a frail breed-greed is but one weakness.

As for acquiring Parkas and Smocks isn't that allowed? Ooooooooooops
 
#18
If you owe money to the Crown ie Taxman or Courts is there their a limitation on how long they have to collect it.

I thought that the debt was "live" until it was paid in full?
 
#19
I wonder how many sets of body armour could have been bought with what the theiving old git pinched?
 
#20
Herrumph said:
I too knew the two brothers - never saw any reason to believe they inherited father's thieving traits. They were also not stupid which is why I am surprised they never asked the question . . .
Same reason the sons of the recently arrested vanishing canoeist are gutted: from the day you are born, in most households, you trust your mum and dad unreservedly.

To me, that is obvious, and that deceit, on top of the one that earned him his conviction, makes Gordon F doubly a scoundrel.
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top