wmlro.com - Will UK authorities have the courage to charge MP's?

British MPs have been caught with their hands in the biscuit barrel, some of them are in it up to their armpits.

Of those so far found out, the excuses range from the equivalent of

- I did it because I could

- I was just trying it on and I thought I'd got away with it

- You've got nothing on me, if you think you have, prove it.

- I adopted a flexible interpretation of the rules that was, at the time, accepted by those that vet expenses.

Imagine someone in a clothing shop. The offer says "buy two pieces, get the cheaper one free." So the person picks a label from a third piece of cheap clothing and swaps it with the tag on a more expensive piece. The cashier does not notice and so the more expensive item is taken without it being paid for.

That is not so different from some of the activities disclosed in a list of MP's expenses claims published by Channel 4 News. (here )

If an employee in a company inflates his expenses claims, or makes claims for items that are not permitted under the company's expenses rules, or claims for something that is allowed but spends the money on something that is not allowed, the company would at least discipline him and possibly report him for prosecution.

And it is a long established principle of English law that any employee that steals from his employer is regarded with special ire, and on sentencing in a criminal court, will receive a harsher sentence than if he had committed a similar theft from a stranger. This is specifically to reflect the trust that employers must be able to have in their employees.

No doubt someone knows precisely who employs MPs. I don't.

But one thing is clear: if fraudulent claims have been made - even if passed due to neglect or connivance by parliamentary staff - those who have defrauded the public purse should be prosecuted.

And here's the real issue: where the fraud has been for the purchase or maintenance or improvement of assets, those assets should be subject to the full weight of the Proceeds of Crime Act, and subject to confiscation.

More: if it can be established that the culpable MPs discussed the ways in which they could maximise padded claims without getting caught, that's conspiracy - and this will include a wide range of advisers who have devised the systems that the MPs have adopted.

Finally, it has long been a principle of UK tax law that any device adopted for the express purpose of avoiding tax will be set aside. It is, especially, ironic that the former and present Chancellor are both alleged to have adopted devices that may have allowed them to avoid or minimise capital gains tax. HM Revenue and Customs needs to look into those allegations diligently and with alacrity.

And the fact that money has been repaid after the schemes were uncovered - or in anticipation of them being uncovered - must not be allowed to be a defence.

The ministers that control the Treasury (and therefore the tax investigators) and the Home Office (and therefore the police) must, demonstrably, be held accountable (as must all other MPs) and, if there is evidence of wrongdoing, prosecuted as any other citizen would be.

Nigel Morris-Cotterill is Head, The Anti Money Laundering Network, the Group which owns Vortex Centrum Limited, publisher of BankingInsuranceSecurities.Com