Fraud MEP Ordered to Repay £67,000

chikrodah · 17-12-2007, 07:59 AM

Mep Mote Ordered To Repay 67 000 (from Your Local Guardian)

Quote:

MEP Mote ordered to repay £67,000

Disgraced MEP Ashley Mote has been told he must repay £67,000 of benefits he falsely claimed.

Mote, MEP for Spelthorne and Runnymede, was found guilty of 21 offences including false accounting and obtaining money by deception at Portsmouth Crown Court. He was jailed for nine months in September.

The 71-year-old has now been released from prison and is appealing against his conviction.

He challenged a decision by the Social Security Commissioners that the money he falsely claimed in income support and housing benefits between February 1996 and September 2002 be paid back.

His appeal was today rejected at the Court of Appeal.

Mote was elected as a UKIP MEP in 2004. He went on to stand as an independent after he was thrown out of the party.

During his trial the court heard Mote ran a business which collapsed in 2002.

He began claiming benefits, but the court was told he failed to notify the authorities when he started earning money again in 1996.

Calls were made for Mote to resign following his conviction. He has retained his seat in Europe as he would only have been disqualified if he has been given a prison term over 12 months.

5:19pm Friday 14th December 2007

chikrodah · 17-12-2007, 10:57 AM

It gets worse...

MEP Mote must repay all of cash to Chichester residents - Chichester Today

Quote:

An MEP must repay the £67,000 in housing benefit and income support that landed him in jail, judges have ruled.
Ashley Mote, an MEP for South East England, was imprisoned for nine months in September this year after being found guilty of 21 offences connected with benefit fraud.

He has appealed against both his criminal conviction and the finding that the benefits were overpayments and must be repaid.

Mote, 71, who is now out of jail, is awaiting the ruling of the criminal appeal court but civil appeal judges threw out his challenge to the Social Security Commissioners' demands.

Mote claimed £32,000 in income support and £35,000 in housing benefit from Chichester District Council in West Sussex when he failed to declare he was earning £4,000 a month, said the judges.

Lord Justice Richards, giving the ruling of the civil Court of Appeal today, said that in June 2004, not long after his criminal case was referred to the Crown Court, he was elected as a Euro MP and the criminal proceedings stayed on the ground that they were in breach of his privilege as an MEP.

In July 2005, the European Parliament waived his immunity and he was convicted and jailed.

Mote retained his seat because he can only be disqualified if he had received a term of more than 12 months. The father-of-two sits as an independent after he was thrown out of UKIP when they learned he faced criminal charges.

The appeal judges said the fact that he had to give evidence at his appeal over the demands for repayment would not have prejudiced the criminal proceedings.

At the appeal before the Social Security Commissioners, it was found that in 2000 Mote gave information to Sainsbury's Bank in a loan application that he had a monthly income of £4,000 and had paid a total of £60,394 into an Isle of Man account between 1996 and 2000.

None of this information was supplied by Mote to the officials providing his income support and housing benefits.

Petrina · 17-12-2007, 11:36 AM

There was quite a long piece on the BBC South East television news a couple of days ago confirming the above postings .
Interestingly the programme makers had another MEP for South East ( can`t recall his name ) calling for the regulations to be tightened up re MPs and MEPs .
Maybe the lasting legacy of Mote`s dishonesty will be that Parliament looks again at the slack rules which allow him to retain his seat and all of his allowances whilst in prison .

Thank goodness UKIP took decisive action when it did.

Aardvark · 17-12-2007, 11:58 AM

Pity they don't tighten up on the rules that seemingly allow a MEP to walk away from his contractual obligations to his staff. I've got Mote in court in March to try to recover what he owes me.

Mote is a great one for claiming and spending other people's money, but not too keen on paying it out. I wonder what his lawyers will have charged for his appeal. His legal fees fighting me have already exceeded the amount he owes.

Petrina · 17-12-2007, 05:35 PM

I understand that the Evil Empire foot the bill for legal advice /representation for their MEPs if they get in trouble .How much of the Mote case the EU is carrying I don`t know .

Aardvark · 17-12-2007, 07:24 PM

Can someone ask the question? It is absurd that he is getting funding from the taxpayer to fight me in the courts when I can't claim costs in small claims. I suppose I can ask him on cross examination. If he is funded then Christopher Hayes his solicitor is taking the p*** somewhat.

Basically Mote is a crook of the worst order and the taxpayer is paying for his continued abuse of the system. Apart from the complete imbeciles of Chichester UKIP is there anybody who doesn't think he's the vilest hypocrite on the face of the planet.

chikrodah · 17-12-2007, 08:12 PM

There's nothing obvious in the EP's own rules of procedure that would cover this. Where is it written down that MEPs get handouts from the EU for legal expenses? I seem to recall some fuss about EU officials (civil servants, I think) getting immunity, extra expenses, tax breaks etc., but the rules governing MEPs were supposed to be in line with the MPs of their own countries. When did that change?

Could Bellatrix, Gawain or GC provide some insight? If MEPs can get legal expenses, there could be mileage in it for our MEPs to launch legal cases on behalf of eurosceptics.

Petrina · 21-12-2007, 06:35 PM

I understand on good authority that the EU was paying for AM`s lawyers in his criminal case .I will of course apologise if I am wrong .

If this is the case then the expense will be huge . Firstly he had a couple of applications to keep his MEP`s immunity from prosecution and avoid the British courts , then he had a Silk and Junior in the Crown Court and now he has had an appeal in the Court of Appeal ,presumably again with a Silk and Junior .

All of his convictions arise from a course of conduct prior to his election as an MEP. How on earth can the EU ,via the taxpayer ,support its MEPs to this ludicrous extent. Shouldn`t our lot be asking questions re this matter and highlighting the misuse of taxpayers money and also highlighting the fact that this puts MEPs in a far better position to defend themselves than the citizens who elected them to preserve our interests ,or don`t they care about it?

Independent UKIP · 21-12-2007, 11:35 PM

Courtesy of David Boothroyd from vote-2007 is the link to the appeal decision in the Ashley Mote case. One count was overturned, the rest of the appeal was rejected.

Mote v R [2007] EWCA Crim 3131 (21 December 2007)

Independent UKIP · 21-12-2007, 11:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Petrina

I understand on good authority that the EU was paying for AM`s lawyers in his criminal case .I will of course apologise if I am wrong .

If this is the case then the expense will be huge . Firstly he had a couple of applications to keep his MEP`s immunity from prosecution and avoid the British courts , then he had a Silk and Junior in the Crown Court and now he has had an appeal in the Court of Appeal ,presumably again with a Silk and Junior .

All of his convictions arise from a course of conduct prior to his election as an MEP. How on earth can the EU ,via the taxpayer ,support its MEPs to this ludicrous extent. Shouldn`t our lot be asking questions re this matter and highlighting the misuse of taxpayers money and also highlighting the fact that this puts MEPs in a far better position to defend themselves than the citizens who elected them to preserve our interests ,or don`t they care about it?

Our lot should be asking questions and highlighting this, but on the basis of demonstrable evidence not an anonymous good authority. If it was them not you making public claims on such a basis which proved to be wrong that would be very damaging to the party credibility with the media and would be remorselessly condemned on this forum by persons similar to yourself who are somewhat critical of the party leadership. No such negative consequences result from your suggestion above if it were proved to be wrong.

17-12-2007, 11:58 AM	#4 (permalink)
Aardvark Moderator Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Oxonia Posts: 4,256	Pity they don't tighten up on the rules that seemingly allow a MEP to walk away from his contractual obligations to his staff. I've got Mote in court in March to try to recover what he owes me. Mote is a great one for claiming and spending other people's money, but not too keen on paying it out. I wonder what his lawyers will have charged for his appeal. His legal fees fighting me have already exceeded the amount he owes. __________________ When in Woking do as the Wokes do. "I do not wish to form my opinions by thoughtlessly quoting others; I wish others to support their opinions by sensibly quoting me." Paul Wesson (Aardvark) 13th April 2008

17-12-2007, 07:24 PM	#6 (permalink)
Aardvark Moderator Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Oxonia Posts: 4,256	Can someone ask the question? It is absurd that he is getting funding from the taxpayer to fight me in the courts when I can't claim costs in small claims. I suppose I can ask him on cross examination. If he is funded then Christopher Hayes his solicitor is taking the p*** somewhat. Basically Mote is a crook of the worst order and the taxpayer is paying for his continued abuse of the system. Apart from the complete imbeciles of Chichester UKIP is there anybody who doesn't think he's the vilest hypocrite on the face of the planet. __________________ When in Woking do as the Wokes do. "I do not wish to form my opinions by thoughtlessly quoting others; I wish others to support their opinions by sensibly quoting me." Paul Wesson (Aardvark) 13th April 2008

21-12-2007, 11:35 PM	#9 (permalink)
Independent UKIP Uber Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: London Posts: 2,492	Mote Appeal Courtesy of David Boothroyd from vote-2007 is the link to the appeal decision in the Ashley Mote case. One count was overturned, the rest of the appeal was rejected. Mote v R [2007] EWCA Crim 3131 (21 December 2007)

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

17-12-2007, 11:36 AM	#3 (permalink)
Petrina Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: sussex Posts: 1,064	There was quite a long piece on the BBC South East television news a couple of days ago confirming the above postings . Interestingly the programme makers had another MEP for South East ( can`t recall his name ) calling for the regulations to be tightened up re MPs and MEPs . Maybe the lasting legacy of Mote`s dishonesty will be that Parliament looks again at the slack rules which allow him to retain his seat and all of his allowances whilst in prison . Thank goodness UKIP took decisive action when it did.

17-12-2007, 05:35 PM	#5 (permalink)
Petrina Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: sussex Posts: 1,064	I understand that the Evil Empire foot the bill for legal advice /representation for their MEPs if they get in trouble .How much of the Mote case the EU is carrying I don`t know .

17-12-2007, 08:12 PM	#7 (permalink)
chikrodah Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Midlands Posts: 1,875	There's nothing obvious in the EP's own rules of procedure that would cover this. Where is it written down that MEPs get handouts from the EU for legal expenses? I seem to recall some fuss about EU officials (civil servants, I think) getting immunity, extra expenses, tax breaks etc., but the rules governing MEPs were supposed to be in line with the MPs of their own countries. When did that change? Could Bellatrix, Gawain or GC provide some insight? If MEPs can get legal expenses, there could be mileage in it for our MEPs to launch legal cases on behalf of eurosceptics.

21-12-2007, 06:35 PM	#8 (permalink)
Petrina Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: sussex Posts: 1,064	I understand on good authority that the EU was paying for AM`s lawyers in his criminal case .I will of course apologise if I am wrong . If this is the case then the expense will be huge . Firstly he had a couple of applications to keep his MEP`s immunity from prosecution and avoid the British courts , then he had a Silk and Junior in the Crown Court and now he has had an appeal in the Court of Appeal ,presumably again with a Silk and Junior . All of his convictions arise from a course of conduct prior to his election as an MEP. How on earth can the EU ,via the taxpayer ,support its MEPs to this ludicrous extent. Shouldn`t our lot be asking questions re this matter and highlighting the misuse of taxpayers money and also highlighting the fact that this puts MEPs in a far better position to defend themselves than the citizens who elected them to preserve our interests ,or don`t they care about it?