tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8212152.post-67448048295290833122007-07-23T11:36:00.000+01:002007-07-23T11:36:00.000+01:00Guido,<BR/><BR/>I am sorry to say that I think the chances of a successful prosecution on the basis of "uncommercial loans" is very slim indeed, unless there is conclusive evidence that the loans were, for example, not to be repaid. <BR/><BR/>First, the issue of "commercial" loans comes up in tax cases, where the courts are very reluctant to opine on what is commercial based entirely on matters like interest rates or loan terms. If the terms matched the terms that the Labour Party would get from the Co-op Bank or Nat West, that might be accepted as evidence of commerciality, but on the other hand the simple fact that banks are not offering loans on the same terms does not necessarily make the loan "uncommercial". After all, faced with many offers of a loan from different lenders, a rational person will choose the offer with the most advantageous terms. That doesn't make it an uncommercial loan.<BR/><BR/>Second, the burden of proof in a criminal prosecution is much higher than the balance of probabilities required in a tax (i.e. civil) case.<BR/><BR/>Ergo, without a smoking gun document saying that the loans did not have to be repaid, I would say that your case would go nowhere.mark williamsnoreply@blogger.com