 |
АвтоАвтоматизацияАрхитектураАстрономияАудитБиологияБухгалтерияВоенное делоГенетикаГеографияГеологияГосударствоДомДругоеЖурналистика и СМИИзобретательствоИностранные языкиИнформатикаИскусствоИсторияКомпьютерыКулинарияКультураЛексикологияЛитератураЛогикаМаркетингМатематикаМашиностроениеМедицинаМенеджментМеталлы и СваркаМеханикаМузыкаНаселениеОбразованиеОхрана безопасности жизниОхрана ТрудаПедагогикаПолитикаПравоПриборостроениеПрограммированиеПроизводствоПромышленностьПсихологияРадиоРегилияСвязьСоциологияСпортСтандартизацияСтроительствоТехнологииТорговляТуризмФизикаФизиологияФилософияФинансыХимияХозяйствоЦеннообразованиеЧерчениеЭкологияЭконометрикаЭкономикаЭлектроникаЮриспунденкция
THE DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY
Through a written Parliamentary question, Austin Mitchell MP invited the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to investigate the role of accountancy firms in money laundering.
| Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, if he will investigate the part played by auditing firms in laundering cash. Mr. John Redwood: If the hon. Member has a particular case in mind and cares to let me have details, I shall be pleased to consider it. Source: Hansard19, 30 January 1991. col. 523. |
The Minister was sent a letter (12 February 1991) accompanied by a `Law Report' from Financial Times (18th January 1991, page 36) and an article on the subject matter (Mansell, 1991b). In response, the Minister denied (28 February 1991) responsibility for investigating the involvement of accountants in money laundering and argued that it was either a criminal issue [it should be recalled that AGIP case was a civil case] to be referred to the police or a matter of `professional misconduct' to be taken up with the relevant accountancy body:
| "I have no power under the Companies Act to investigate the role of accountancy firms in this affair. Any question of their criminal involvement would be a matter for the police. The investigation of professional misconduct is a matter for the relevant professional body.... I understand that the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England & Wales had noted the criticisms of one of its members made by the judge..... and is making enquiries. However, the progress of the investigation at present is delayed by the continuing litigation. The Institute is also aware of the unsupported allegations in the press about the auditors, and a report will be made to its investigation committee at its next meeting". Source: Letter (28 February 1991) from the Minister for Corporate Affairs. |
Since the Minister is directly responsible for regulation of business affairs which includes the regulation of accounting and accountants, he was urged (8th and 22nd March 1991) to set up an independent investigation, especially as the court judgement had ruled (see above) that '[Accountants] obviously knew they were laundering money'. The Minister rejected calls for an independent investigation and added that:
| "The police may have been alerted by the recent press articles, which is the only information that I could have given them. If you wish to pursue this matter I suggest that you speak to the police to find out any action taken by them. .... in view of the Court of Appeal's decision [i.e. the Appeal was lost], the litigation is no longer regarded as an impediment to an investigation by the ICAEW, and that the ICAEW is in fact actively reviewing the role of members and member firms in the whole affair" (letter dated 27 March 1991)20. Source: Letter (27 March 1991) from the Minister for Corporate Affairs. |
Dissatisfaction with the Minister's approach was again communicated on 29th April 1991 when the demand for an independent inquiry was repeated. In a subsequent dialogue, the Minister said the following:
Поиск по сайту: