Stolen may not be legally the correct word but in all intents and purposes, that is what has happened. Why do you think He agreed to pay £363m back to the BHS pension fund??
Actually I specifically referred to the Arcadia pension fund but since you mention BHS, let’s deal with that.
The controversy arose when Green sold BHS to Dominic Chappell. At the time of the sale, the BHS pension fund was in deficit. Pension funds can move from deficit to surplus rapidly, depending on the value of the supporting assets and the assumptions made by the actuaries assessing the scheme.
It is not illegal to sell a company when its pension scheme is in deficit.
The pensions regulator took the view that Green had been irresponsible in selling BHS to Dominic Chappell, a former bankrupt who was considered to lack the skills and financial backing to keep BHS afloat and fulfil the future responsibilities to fund the pension scheme.
There was never a suggestion that Green had personally stolen from the fund. I don’t like the man, but I’m not going to support claims that he is a thief.
Whether BHS under his stewardship had made the correct level of contributions in the past is a matter of opinion. The scheme was managed by independent trustees, advised by actuaries.
Because he had broken no laws personally, MPs resorted to putting pressure on him to inject some cash into the scheme because the new owners of BHS clearly could not. The threat of withdrawing the knighthood was used. If he had broken any kind of law they wouldn’t have had to do that.
The pensions regulator wanted to keep the BHS scheme out of the pension protection fund. That is why they negotiated a settlement with Green.