Prince Charles is willing to speak to police over evidence that his aide ‘fixed an honour for Saudi billionaire’
- Michael Fawcett resigned as foundation’s chief executive after string of claims
- He allegedly promised to help get a knighthood and UK citizenship for donor
- Prince Charles is said to be willing to speak to detectives over the allegations
- Clarence House said Charles had ‘no knowledge’ of cash for honours scandal
- Donor Mahfouz Marei Mubarak bin Mahfouz was awarded CBE back in 2016
Prince Charles has reportedly said he is willing to speak to detectives over allegations that his closest aide fixed an honour for a Saudi billionaire.
Michael Fawcett, for years a trusted ally of Prince Charles, stepped down last month amid claims he promised to help secure a CBE and British citizenship for Mahfouz Marei Mubarak bin Mahfouz – a donor to the Prince’s Foundation.
It was alleged that he paid thousands of pounds to ‘fixers’ with links to the prince who said they could secure him an honour in return for donations.
A probe last week concluded that Mr Fawcett did co-ordinate with ‘fixers’ over honours nominations for Mahfouz, who has donated more than £1.5 million to royal charities.
The Prince of Wales, 73, has insisted he had ‘no knowledge’ of the alleged deal, but he could still prove to be a vital witness, as he held private meetings with Dr Mahfouz at the British embassy in Saudi Arabia, in London and Scotland.
A Clarence House spokesman told The Times that Charles would ‘of course’ be willing to assist Scotland Yard detectives if asked to do so.
A Clarence House spokesman reportedly said Prince Charles (pictured with Michael Fawcett) would ‘of course’ be willing to assist Scotland Yard detectives over cash for honours scandal
Dr Mahfouz received his CBE during a private ceremony at Clarence House in 2016.
A probe into fundraising practices was ordered by the Prince’s Foundation and carried out independently by auditing firm Ernst & Young.
Its conclusion, released on Thursday, found that Mr Fawcett co-ordinated with ‘fixers’ over honours nominations for a Saudi billionaire donor to the foundation.
Mr Fawcett was also involved in directing money from the donor’s foundation to another charity of which Charles was patron, it was revealed.
The findings will be shared with the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator (OSCR), which is examining dealings at the foundation.
Dame Sue Bruce, chair of the Prince’s Foundation, described the recent crises surrounding the future king’s charitable organisation as a ‘difficult chapter’, but said ‘lessons will be learned’ to ensure the charity acts with the ‘utmost integrity and probity’.
Mr Fawcett stepped down last month amid the claims he promised to help secure a knighthood and British citizenship for Mahfouz.
A letter also emerged, written by Mr Fawcett to Dr Mahfouz in 2017, in which he said the Prince’s Foundation would be ‘happy and willing’ to use its influence to help him.
Michael Fawcett, for years an ally of Prince Charles, stepped down amid claims he promised to help secure a CBE and British citizenship for Mahfouz Marei Mubarak bin Mahfouz (pictured)
A probe last week concluded that Mr Fawcett (pictured) did co-ordinate with ‘fixers’ over honours nominations for Mahfouz, who has donated more than £1.5 million to royal charities
Clarence House said: ‘It is important to His Royal Highness that the charities which bear his name operate to the highest standards, in accordance with rules established by charity regulators.
‘We are taking this opportunity to reinforce guidance to these charities, particularly in respect of their relationships with supporters.’
Republic, which campaigns for an elected head of state, said there was a ‘glaring hole’ in the investigation concerning what Charles knew about the dealings.
Clarence House has previously said the prince had ‘no knowledge’ of the cash for honours scandal.
Graham Smith of Republic said: ‘How could a charity CEO acquire honours or meetings with Prince Charles without Charles’s knowledge of what was going on?
‘It isn’t credible, but the charity has carefully steered clear of any questions about Charles, which leaves a glaring hole in their investigation.’
The independent investigation found evidence of Mr Fawcett’s ‘communications and co-ordination’ with ‘so-called ‘fixers’ regarding honorary nominations for a donor between 2014-18′, the summary said, but trustees were not aware at the time of this correspondence.
A summary of the findings revealed that Mr Fawcett and another unnamed senior employee were involved in directing a transfer of funds from the Mahfouz Foundation, founded by Dr bin Mahfouz, to the Children and the Arts Foundation (CATA), which is semi-defunct.
The activity, including written correspondence, took place without the knowledge or approval of the Prince’s Foundation trustees, according to the investigation.
The Charity Commission has launched an inquiry into the Mahfouz Foundation over allegations that donations intended for the Prince’s Foundation went to CATA instead.
Mr Fawcett was involved in directing a transfer of funds from the Mahfouz Foundation to CATA, the summary said.
CATA, which was formerly the Prince’s Foundation for Children and the Arts, was founded by Charles in 2006 to offer young people with little access to the arts the chance to experience theatre, music and galleries.
Companies House documents filed in September 2019 said trustees would begin the process of winding up the charity.
The Times reported last month that Mr Fawcett arranged for the transfer to CATA in September 2020.
Mr Fawcett was Charles’s most indispensable aide over the decades, with the prince once saying: ‘I can manage without just about anyone, except for Michael.’
The former royal valet quit twice before, including in 2003 when, as Charles’s personal assistant, he was accused and cleared by an inquiry of selling royal gifts, but was revealed to have accepted valuable gifts from outsiders.
Dame Sue said: ‘The board of trustees agreed unequivocally that the recent allegations had to be independently investigated so that the facts could be established, and all necessary steps could be taken to address the issues identified.
‘Now that the board has the findings of the investigation, trustees are considering them in conjunction with OSCR and other relevant parties.
‘The board of trustees is determined that lessons will be learned to ensure that, in future, our charity maintains the highest standards in all areas and always acts with the utmost integrity and probity.
‘As we move through this difficult chapter, I hope that the stories of note will begin to focus once more on the beneficial outcomes delivered by the Prince’s Foundation, and we look forward with optimism to continuing to deliver our charitable activities.’
Other findings from the investigation included that there was no evidence that employees or trustees of the foundation were aware of private dinners being sold or arranged in exchange for money.
It also said there was no evidence of the foundation paying commissions to society fixer Michael Wynne-Parker or Burke’s Peerage editor William Bortrick.
The foundation said: ‘The investigation did identify other instances of commissions being discussed or paid.
‘It is not uncommon for charities to pay commission to third parties for the introduction of donors.’
OSCR said it was carefully considering the report and continuing with its inquiry ‘before we decide what action, if any, is required in this case’.
Ex-Liberal Democrat MP Norman Baker has previously written to the Metropolitan Police asking them to launch a criminal investigation into the cash for honours claims.
Dame Cressida Dick said the Metropolitan Police had made ‘initial inquiries’ after receiving a letter regarding Michael Fawcett, who resigned as the Prince’s Foundation’s chief executive after a string of allegations.
Asked for an update during an LBC radio phone-in on Friday, Dame Cressida said: ‘We have received a letter, as you say, we have been making some initial inquiries. We have not launched an investigation. If people out there have further material for us we will of course look at that, if there’s further evidence.
‘But at this stage, having considered the letter, made some initial inquiries and examined relevant legislation, some of which is in 1925 and some of which is the new bribery act, we have not launched an investigation.’
Source: Read Full Article