A suitcase with a million euros in cash given to Charles

[antelopevalley]

The real question is what the Prime Minister was expecting in return.

"The Prince of Wales accepted a suitcase containing a million euros in cash from a former Qatari prime minister, the Sunday Times has reported.
The paper says this was one of three cash donations from Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim totalling three million euros.
Clarence House said donations from the sheikh were passed immediately to one of the prince's charities and all the correct processes were followed.
There is no suggestion the payments were illegal.
According to the Sunday Times, Prince Charles received the three cash donations in person from the former prime minister between 2011 and 2015.
It is claimed that on one occasion the money was handed over in a holdall at a meeting at Clarence House. On another, the paper reported the cash was contained in carrier bags from the department store Fortnum and Mason."

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61941113

I am very familiar with 'Middle Eastern culture', having lived in the Gulf region, including the nation being discussed, for several years.

Absolutely no way is it the norm for a legitimate transaction of this magnitude to involve cash and suitcases. Even if it was, Charles should have politely said he needed it to go through the official banking channels.

I don't believe that Charles is personally corrupt, but at the very least, he is being poorly advised. It's not like this is a one off. There have been several similar instances which cast doubt on his judgement as a future head of state.

Do you get that it’s not where the money ‘ended up’ that is important, but what was expected in exchange? What lobbying has Charles done? How has he used his influence to help Qatar?

How has he used his influence to help Qatar?

You're the one casting aspersions, so you tell us.

Another royalist enters the fray. The point is, nobody knows what private lobbying Charles has done in exchange for his cash gift. Which makes the affair look suspicious enough for the Sunday Times to run a story on it. If Charles wants to guard against ‘aspersions’, he can make sure that he isn’t personally accepting sacks of cash - on three separate occasions - from his Qatari mates in private meetings, can’t he? Then he won’t need to explain his actions.

Each to there own but wish the ST finished the story rather than cast aspersions . Prefer fact rather than having to guess and fill the blanks in myself .

To make a general remark, the thing with corruption is that if it looks like a duck, it probably is a duck.

Charles is corrupt, stupid or both.

My MIL gives us cash gifts up to several £K! She is not from the UK, I think it's the whole performance thing. That said, over that amount she uses SWIFT like everyone else.

Of course this is bizarre.

You’ve had the facts. Charles accepted bags full of cash totalling EUR 1 million, on three separate occasions from the former Qatari prime minister, in private meetings. Which Charles’ own staff counted. We don’t know what favours Charles did subsequently because they royal family like to keep their activities secret. For good reason.

The rest is up to you and your powers of logical deduction. See the post above re ‘if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck’.

“Sheikh Hamad faces serious accusations over human rights and has significant financial and other interests here in the UK,” Mr Smith said.
“Given that Prince Charles has direct access to the British prime minister and all government ministers, as well as all cabinet papers, this raises serious ethical questions about what the Sheikh expected in return”
“Was he able to use Charles as a channel for influencing the UK government or to gain inside knowledge of government business?"

“This also adds to the serious questions about Prince Charles’s judgement, following from other accusations of cash-for-access and cash-for-honours.”

www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1631410/Qatari-sheikh-prince-Charles-royal-family-monarch-fortnum-and-Mason-donation

At the very minimum, Charles continually demonstrates that he has very poor judgement.

No, the point is The Times did an in depth investigation and the worst they could come up with is that the denominations used to be called Bin Laden money. A cack handed attempt to persuade readers into yhinking, ooo, it must be dodgy. If they'd found anything, anything, amiss, they'd have reported it. And instead they say they can't find that Charles did anything wrong.

You speculating about influence is just like the papers, designed to excite condemnation without having any facts. You find the influence where The Times couldn't and then there's a discussion.

And grow up with your royalist crap. Regardless of who Charles is, he's entitled not to be slandered. I'd say the same for anyone.

This! Poor judgement! And it's not a new thing either and therein lies the rub!
As for Boris, which sb else mentioned, the foreign press is much much less forgiving, he's coming across as a bit of a twat with poor judgement and many lovers.

@LetitiaLeghorn getting evidence when you have no access to financial records or the bank's records is impossible without a whistleblower.

As above, if Charles doesn’t want to be ‘slandered’, he could stop accepting bags of cash from Qatari former prime ministers. It’s not hard. He doesn’t need you or anyone else to spring to his defence.

If you think that the worst part of that story is the acknowledgment that the EUR 500 denomination note has since been removed from circulation because of its use in funding terrorism, you must be reading the story selectively.

Of course nobody knows what lobbying Charles has done on behalf of Qatar. He’s hardly likely to admit to it. He has plenty of form for attempting to meddle in politics and he was criticised for his involvement with cash for honours earlier this year. So don’t present him as an innocent victim of press speculation.

There's no whistle-blower because he hasn't done anything wrong. 🙄 The Times have been through all this and can find he's done nothing wrong and everything's accounted for. If they thought financial laws had been broken, they'd have referred it to the police and HMRC for investigation - and they have access to his financial records. But they didn't refer him because even the gossips leaking to the papers aren't claiming he's done anything wrong.

So unless you know something different, which you don't, you're just grasping at air to try and slur him.

if Charles doesn’t want to be ‘slandered’, he could stop accepting bags of cash from Qatari former prime ministers.

So you admit you're slandering him? Which means you're knowingly telling lies about him. Nice.

If 'by nothing wrong' you mean he didn't skim off some or all of the money for his own purposes, I agree with you. Mind you, given that the money was delivered in cash, we can't know for sure.

But the thing is, when you're a future, unelected head of state, you simply can't put yourself in the position where people will speculate as to your motives and actions. So in that sense, Charles certainly did 'something wrong'. Not just once, but several times. Ever heard of the expression, 'Caesar's wife must be above suspicion'. Expect that Charles isn't Caesar's wife, but Caesar himself, so to speak. It really does show shockingly poor judgement, at the very least.

I am very familiar with 'Middle Eastern culture', having lived in the Gulf region, including the nation being discussed, for several years

Erm, I’m pleased for you? I have a great deal of experience with foreign sovereign wealth funds from that areas of the world, they ways in which they like to conduct business, and the money laundering challenges that this can give rise to. Turns out, we disagree on a few matters, but such is life. 😀

The idea that Qatar needs Prince Charles to lobby for them in the UK is laughable. The UK Government has been hotly pursuing Qatar as a priority foreign investment and diplomatic partner for years now. Qatar via its various state arms owns 25% of British Airways, 6% of Barclays, 20% of Sainsbury’s, Heathrow, Canary Wharf, Harrods, the Shard etc etc. The government recently issued a joint statement of intent with the Qatari government for Qatar to invest another £10bn in the Uk over the next 10 years. Qatar is also a big market for weapons made by UK manufacturers.

At the time he met Prince Charles, the Sheikh was overseeing the Qatar sovereign wealth fund, the state piggy bank and the key investor in the UK. Prince Charles would abolsutely have been expected by the UK government to avoid offending him at all costs. And, as I’ve said several times, if the money you are offered passes the due diligence checks, the only reason not to accept it is the fact that people will later use it to cast aspersions about your behaviour. In this case it’s probably the self-same government that urges the Royal family to make as nice as possible to the Middle Eastern leaders, but such is their life.

So you admit you're slandering him? Which means you're knowingly telling lies about him. Nice.

Don’t be silly.

"I have a great deal of experience with foreign sovereign wealth funds from that areas of the world, they ways in which they like to conduct business, and the money laundering challenges that this can give rise to. "

So you're saying that it's the norm for senior Middle Eastern royals to give cash to their foreign peers in suitcases?

But the point is moot. Even if that is true, a man in Charles' position should not have accepted. He or one of his minions should have diplomatically told him that in 'British culture' it's expected that all 'gifts' to senior members of the royal family should be accounted for through official banking channels.

"The idea that Qatar needs Prince Charles to lobby for them in the UK is laughable."

Every little helps.

For a senior Gulf royal, a million quid is like the money the rest of us find down the back of the sofa. So it's not like this was some major investment for them.

But to repeat, I'm not suggesting Charles did anything nefarious with the money. What I am saying is that he put himself into a position where his motives could be suspected, and that shows a lack of judgement.

There are always people on MN who will defend any action by any member of the Royal Family.
You really think the Queen would have done this? Because I do not.

But the thing is, when you're a future, unelected head of state, you simply can't put yourself in the position where people will speculate as to your motives and actions.

Whatever he does, people would speculate. But despite an investigation, they can't find he's broken any laws or done anything underhand. And yet people on here are still agitating that he might have done something wrong. But no proof.

The thing about Caesars wife, there was no social media then, everyone was accountable for their words. And if you made a wrong allegation about her, you got your throat slit. These days people don't pay a price like that so it should be beholden on them to practise self-regulation. One day people might start saying untruths about them and I can guarantee, they'd be the first to squeal.

I don't believe that Charles is personally corrupt, but at the very least, he is being poorly advised.

I don't think we can necessarily blame the flunkies for yet another own goal on the heir's part. His own common sense should have told him hauling carrier bags full of high denomination banknotes around was liable to raise a few eyebrows.

Sadly he doesn't appear to have been over-endowed with it.

The Times have been through all this and can find he's done nothing wrong and everything's accounted for

The Charity Commission are now making their own enquiries. Not holding my breath for anything more than a 'nothing to see here' result though.

OK. Nobody say, or think, anything negative about our dear prince and heir to the throne. Lest ye be publicly shamed.

Of course, the fact that very few of us are in a position to secure advantages for rich Middle Eastern businessmen, or are publicly funded to live a luxurious life, rather changes things.

Perhaps look up the story about Michael Fawcett, Prince Charles’ long term employee and fixer, resigning following an investigation into Fawcett offering to secure both a knighthood and British citizenship for Mahfouz Marei Mubarak bin Mahfouz., a Saudi billionaire who also made generous donations to Charles’ charities. Clearly Mahfouz didn’t think that the prospect of needing Charles’ influence was ‘laughable’.

The fact there has already been a cash for honours scandal is supposed to be ignored.
The Royal Family are above the law.