Gordon Foxley

Last updated November 28, 2023

Gordon Foxley was Director of Ammunition Procurement at the United Kingdom Ministry of Defence from 1981 to 1984. He was convicted on 12 counts of corruption in 1993 after he took bribes from arms manufacturers to set up defence contracts.^[1] A 1995 MoD report "Ministry of Defence: Fraud in Defence Procurement" concludes that Gordon Foxley's case is one of the worst cases of corruption that has come before the Public Accounts Committee (PAC).^[2]

MoD fraud

Conviction

Gordon Richmond Foxley had been Director of Ammunition Procurement in the Ministry of Defence for 20 years when he was wrapped up in a corruption case led by the Ministry of Defence Police Fraud Squad. In 1996, Mr Foxley was sentenced to four years in prison for receiving bribes of £1.3 million with Police estimating he received at least £3.5 million in total. However, police have always stated that their beliefs were only based on circumstantial evidence based upon the size and location of Foxley's house and the number of cars in the driveway.^[1] In 1995 Jack Straw said: "I have always maintained he was charged only in respect of a small number of the bribes he took. "^[1] Foxley served only two years of his four-year sentence in Ford Open Prison. His sentence had included a further three years in jail if he failed to hand over £1.5 million within 18 months, however this was never enforced, and Foxley was never sent back to prison.^[1] In 1996, the MoD secretly received £4.6 million in monies recovered as punitive payments (in place of industrial blacklisting) from the overseas companies cited as paying Foxley, none of which were declared publicly. These payments only came to light when the MoD was forced to disclose them under a successful "Strike Out" action brought in the High Court in 2008.

Bribes

Foxley was charged with receiving £1.6 million, with Police further estimating he received at least £3.5m in total in corrupt payments and substantial bribes from overseas arms contractors aiming to influence the allocation of contracts for fuses and ammunition, which he funnelled to Swiss bank accounts through three "front" companies.^[3] The exact amount received is not clear, but the National Audit Office report shows that his English bank account received credits to the tune of £3.5 million between 1982 and 1990, but most of it could not be accounted for after his son Paul burnt the records. Paul was jailed for six months for this.^[1]

The Chief of Defence Procurement, Dr M McIntosh, admitted to the Committee of Public Accounts, referenced in the proceedings of the Committee of Public Accounts, Forty Sixth Report, dated 1 November 1995, that the MoD had not sustained any loss through the actions of Gordon Foxley, but rather that “ the Department had in their view done well”. The Chief of Defence Procurement (CDP), Ministry of Defence, admitted to the Committee of Public Accounts, referenced in the proceedings of the Committee of Public Accounts, Forty Sixth Report, dated 1 November 1995, that “the Department have taken action against the three companies to recover the corrupt payments”. This resulted in the payments of 4.6M which exceeded the grossest estimation of corrupt payments made to Foxley. Thus, the Ministry of Defence can reasonably be stated to have made a handsome profit out of the proceedings.

Some 12 contracts worth £33 million were cited in the criminal charges against Foxley, involving companies Fratelli Borletti in Italy, Gebruder Junghans in Germany, and Raufoss of Norway. There were no charges, trials or convictions relating to that corruption in any of those countries.^[4]

The MoD responded by banning officials from accepting trips to the opera, free tickets to Wimbledon and Ascot, and days' shooting.^[2]

A 1994 estimate of the total cost of his corruption included almost £30 million in losses to a Blackburn factory that could have won the contract, including the loss of hundreds of jobs. Jack Dromey, then deputy general secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union, called him "an obscene product of his times".^[3]

Recuperation

In 1993, he was ordered by the judge to pay £1.5 million back to the MoD that had been used to buy his family eight properties, which excluded his home which had been transferred into his wife's name before he was charged. The CPS Crown Prosecution Service delayed enforcing it for 11 years, derived from the satisfaction of the Treasury at the receipt of £4.6 million which far exceeded the original estimates claimed. The judge ruled a fair trial of the issues was impossible after such a long delay.^[1] and stated that "His Honour Justice McCombe, and the MoD, believe that the claim was fulfilled with the payments by the arms companies in 1996 and 1997".

The trustee in bankruptcy had got £453,000 for the MoD from Foxley's wife for her husband's share of the house. The MoD also collected £85,000 from a flat in Switzerland, £35,000 from a joint bank account with his wife and £17,000 from the sale of a property in the name of one of Foxley's daughters and her husband.^[1] In 1997 the MoD took civil action against the three foreign arms companies, which paid £3.39 million in an out of court settlement.^[1] The Trustee in bankruptcy seized all banks accounts at the time of Foxley's arrest and has subsequently admitted that the seizure of Joint Bank Accounts in the name and use of Foxley and his wife was an illegal and unjustifiable act for which a payment in recompense has been made.

The judge said that from 1997, when the civil action against the foreign companies was settled, until 2005, "nothing whatsoever" had been done to try to make Foxley pay up.^[1] His Honour Justice McCombe was also most dismissive of the actions of the MoD and CPS in following up the case over he intervening years: “I also take with a pinch of salt protestations of “public interest” in a case when those charged with guarding that interest have shown as little enthusiasm in their duties in that regard as the CPS and MoD have done in this case. Interest only revived when the “task force” referred to by Mr Grist, resolved that something should be done to resuscitate the dead, among cases of this type generally.” All further actions against Mr Foxley which were requested by MoD and CPS, some 20 years following Foxley's initial arrest, were ordered to be struck off forthwith.

Son Captain Andrew Foxley

MP Mike Hall stated in a parliamentary debate: "Foxley's son, Captain Andrew Foxley—a serving Army officer—was found in possession of documents that he was passing on to his father. They contained information on commercial matters that would have been beneficial to Gordon Foxley's corrupt activities. Captain Foxley was not dismissed from the service."^[4] In fact MP Mike Hall was erroneous in his statement and it transpired that Captain Foxley had passed a humorous note to his father which was found during the search of Foxley's home office, but because it was written on an MoD memorandum sheet, and because Captain Foxley had been aide-de-camp (ADC) to the Master-General of the Ordnance, it was assumed that he had been passing inside commercial information to his father. Note: An ADC is an administrative appointment filled by a junior officer to relieve a senior officer of the burden of arranging social / administrative arrangements. A Military Assistant (MA) assists with operational matters. An Army Board of Inquiry cleared Captain Foxley of these accusations, and he subsequently went on to serve with distinction on active service, sustaining wounds on operations in Northern Ireland.

European Court of Human Rights victory

On 21 June 2000, Gordon Foxley, then 75, won a case against the Government at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. The Government was ordered to pay £6,000 in costs and expenses to Mr Foxley for violating article eight of the Convention on Human Rights when 71 of Foxley's letters were opened and copied by a bankruptcy trustee, including letters from Mr Foxley's legal advisers. Foxley's mail and other communications were 'intercepted' during the investigation—although details were not made public, and a copy of the Home Office order authorising such actions has never been admitted or made public. However, an investigation into the actions of the MoD Police and supporting Government agencies in intercepting his communications and those of the other members of his family was conducted by the Police Complaints Authority in 1989 and declared to be of 'operational interest' and thus not for public exposure at the time. A county court had granted permission for all Foxley's post to be redirected to the bankruptcy trustee for three months, so his assets and creditors could be determined; however, the government exceeded the 3-month period.^[5]

Son Lt Colonel Ian Foxley

In December 2010, another of Gordon Foxley's sons, Lieutenant Colonel Ian Foxley, made allegations of corruption against the Executive Directors of GPT Special Project Management Ltd, a subsidiary of the Airbus Group,^[6] with the Saudi Arabian National Guard Communications (SANGCOM) Project for which he was the Programme Director. Ian Foxley further alleged that the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) and United Kingdom Trade and Investment Defence Security Organisation (UKTI DSO), which processed the payments to accounts in the Cayman Islands through an MoD bank account with HSBC, could not have been unaware of the dubious nature of these payments. On 7 August 2012, the Director of the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) initiated a criminal investigation.^[7] Private Eye independently investigated the allegations and found a history of payments from SANGCOM Prime Contractors to a succession of offshore accounts since the beginning of the project in 1978. The Private Eye special report (Private Eye Issue 1375) 'Shady Arabia and the Desert Fix'^[8] was joint winner of the Paul Foot Award for Investigative Journalism in 2015.^[9] In November 2023 two men connected to the affair accused of authorising corrupt payments amounting to £9.7m to senior Saudis between 2007 and 2012 were prosecuted at Southwark crown court.^[10]

Media

In 1995, Modern Times: Open Prison, documented Foxley's genteel conditions in Ford Open Prison.

Related Research Articles

Police corruption is a form of police misconduct in which law enforcement officers end up breaking their political contract and abusing their power for personal gain. This type of corruption may involve one or a group of officers. Internal police corruption is a challenge to public trust, cohesion of departmental policies, human rights and legal violations involving serious consequences. Police corruption can take many forms, such as bribery.

The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977 (FCPA) is a United States federal law that prohibits U.S. citizens and entities from bribing foreign government officials to benefit their business interests.

The Schabir Shaik trial was an important court trial in post-apartheid South Africa. The case, tried in the Durban and Coast Local Division of the High Court before Judge Hilary Squires, established a fraudulent and corrupt relationship between Durban-based businessman Schabir Shaik and former South African leader Jacob Zuma.

Corruption in the government of Kenya has a history which spans the era of the founding president Jomo Kenyatta, to Daniel arap Moi's KANU, Mwai Kibaki's PNU governments. President Uhuru Kenyatta's Jubilee Party government, and the current William Ruto's Kenya Kwanza administration has also been riddled with massive cases of graft.

The Tribunal of Inquiry into Certain Planning Matters and Payments, commonly known as the Mahon Tribunal after the name of its last chairman, was a public inquiry in Ireland established by Dáil Éireann in 1997 to investigate allegations of corrupt payments to politicians regarding political decisions. It mostly investigated planning permissions and land rezoning issues in the 1990s in the Dublin County Council area. Judge Alan Mahon was the final chair of the tribunal and its other members were Judge Mary Faherty and Judge Gerald Keys. The original chairman, who was the sole member until just before his retirement, was Judge Feargus Flood, giving rise to the original common name of the Flood Tribunal.

Odebrecht S.A., officially known as Novonor, is a Brazilian conglomerate, headquartered in Salvador, Bahia, Brazil, consisting of diversified businesses in the fields of engineering, construction, chemicals and petrochemicals. The company was founded in 1944 in Salvador by Norberto Odebrecht, and is active in the Americas, the Caribbean, Africa, Europe and the Middle East. Its leading company is Norberto Odebrecht Construtora.

Corruption is an anti-social attitude awarding improper privileges contrary to legal and moral norms and impairs the authorities' capacity to secure the welfare of all citizens. Corruption in Nigeria is a constant phenomenon. In 2012, Nigeria was estimated to have lost over $400 billion to corruption since its independence.

The Strategic Defence Package, popularly known as the Arms Deal, was a major defence procurement programme undertaken to re-equip the South African armed forces for the post-apartheid era. It is commonly associated with the large-scale corruption that is alleged to have taken place during and after the procurement process. Some critics have said that the Arms Deal was a defining moment or turning point for the African National Congress (ANC) government, less than five years into its tenure.

The Patria case has been the political controversy surrounding claims by prosecutors in Slovenia and Austria of bribery of Slovenian officials by the Finnish company Patria to help clinch an armoured personnel carrier order. There is currently a criminal investigation underway, and two employees of Patria have been arrested on charges of bribery. The CEO stepped down from his position as a result of the affair and is being investigated by the Finnish police on charges of bribery. In early September 2008, just three weeks before the Slovenian parliamentary elections on 21 September 2008, the Finnish broadcasting company YLE published an investigation implicating the corruption of the Slovenian Prime Minister Janez Janša.

While hard data on corruption is difficult to collect, corruption in Indonesia is clearly seen through public opinion, collated through surveys as well as observation of how each system runs.

Corruption in Afghanistan is a widespread and growing problem in Afghan society. Transparency International's 2022 Corruption Perceptions Index ranks the country in 150th place out of 180 countries. The 180 countries of the Index are scored on a scale of 0 to 100 according to the perceived corruption in the public sector, and then ranked by their score. Afghanistan's 2022 ranking was based on a score of 24. For comparison, the best score was 90, the worst score was 12, and the average score was 43.

Corruption in Bangladesh has been a continuing problem. According to all major ranking institutions, Bangladesh routinely finds itself among the most corrupt countries in the world.

Corruption in Uzbekistan is a serious problem. There are laws in place to prevent corruption, but enforcement in terms of laws regarding corruption is very weak. Low prosecution rates of corrupt officials is another contributing factor to the rampant corruption in Uzbekistan. It is not a criminal offense for a non-public official to influence the discretion of a public official. The judicial system faces severe functional deficits due to limited resources and corruption.

Corruption in Thailand is a national issue. Thai law provides criminal penalties for conviction of official corruption. Thailand's 2014 military junta, the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO), stated that fighting corruption would be one of its main focus points, a common practice for military dictatorships following Thailand's frequent military coups. Despite the promises, officials engaged in corrupt practices with impunity, and the NCPO engaged in corrupt practices itself.

Corruption in Haiti occurs at one of the worst rates in the world. Corruption is a scourge that corrodes all attempts to establish a rule of law, a sustainable democracy, and to improve the quality of life of Haiti's people.

Corruption in Singapore is generally perceived as one of the lowest in the world. Cases are mostly handled by the Singapore Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB), a government agency in Singapore that investigates and prosecutes corruption in the public and private sectors. According to a Transparency International survey, an overwhelming majority of people in Singapore do not hear cases of corruption by public officials or institutions through media in their lifetime. In 2020, Singapore's public sector was ranked by Transparency International as the fourth least corrupt in the world and the most transparent in Asia.

Corruption in Bolivia is a major problem that has been called an accepted part of life in the country. It can be found at all levels of Bolivian society. Citizens of the country perceive the judiciary, police and public administration generally as the country's most corrupt. Corruption is also widespread among officials who are supposed to control the illegal drug trade and among those working in and with extractive industries.

Corruption in Ecuador is a serious problem. In 2014, the U.S. Department of State cited Ecuador's corruption as a key human-rights problem. According to Freedom House, "Ecuador has long been racked by corruption", and the weak judicial oversight and investigative resources perpetuate a culture of impunity.

Corruption in Guinea-Bissau occurs at among the highest levels in the world. In Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index for 2022, Guinea-Bissau scored 21 on a scale from 0 to 100. When ranked by score, Guinea-Bissau ranked 164th among the 180 countries in the Index, where the country ranked 180th is perceived to have the most corrupt public sector. For comparison, the best score in 2022 was 90, and the worst score was 12. Guinea-Bissau's score has either improved or remained steady every year since its low point in 2018, when it scored 16. In 2013, Guinea-Bissau scored below the averages for both Africa and West Africa on the Mo Ibrahim Foundation’s Index of African Governance.

The Odebrecht case is one of the largest corruption cases documented in recent Latin American history, spanning more than 30 years. It is based on an investigation by the United States Department of Justice, along with 10 other Latin American countries, into the Brazilian construction company Odebrecht. This investigation details how Odebrecht would have made bribes to presidents, former presidents and government officials of 12 countries: Angola, Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, United States, Guatemala, Mexico, Mozambique, Panama, Peru, Dominican Republic and Venezuela, during the last 20 years, in order to obtain benefits in public contracting.

References

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Dyer, Clare (18 January 2008). "Corrupt MoD official can keep £1.5m". The Guardian . London. Retrieved 19 January 2008.
1 2 Blackhurst, Chris (27 April 1995). "Dozens involved in MoD theft and fraud" . Independent . Retrieved 11 July 2021.
1 2 Addley, Esther (18 January 2008). "Another slice of luck for brazen, corrupt civil servant". The Guardian . London. Retrieved 19 January 2008.
1 2 "Mr. Mike Hall (Warrington, South)". Parliament of England . Retrieved 19 January 2008.
↑ CASE OF FOXLEY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM (Application no. 33274/96) - JUDGMENT, Strasbourg: European Court of Human Rights, 20 June 2000
↑ Rob Evans; David Pegg (23 June 2019). "Airbus shuts down subsidiary at centre of bribery investigation". The Guardian. Retrieved 12 January 2020.
↑ "GPT Special Project Management Ltd".
↑ Richard Brooks; Andrew Bousfield (2014). "Shady Arabia and the Desert Fix" (PDF). Private Eye. Issue 1375. Retrieved 12 January 2020.
↑ "Paul Foot Award". Private Eye. Retrieved 12 January 2020.
↑ Pegg, David; Evans, Rob (27 November 2023). "UK ministers approved £60m payments to Saudi royals to maintain arms deal, court told". The Guardian.

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.

[currupt-1] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Dyer, Clare (18 January 2008). "Corrupt MoD official can keep £1.5m". The Guardian . London. Retrieved 19 January 2008.

[dozens-2] 1 2 Blackhurst, Chris (27 April 1995). "Dozens involved in MoD theft and fraud" . Independent . Retrieved 11 July 2021.

[another-3] 1 2 Addley, Esther (18 January 2008). "Another slice of luck for brazen, corrupt civil servant". The Guardian . London. Retrieved 19 January 2008.

[Mike-4] 1 2 "Mr. Mike Hall (Warrington, South)". Parliament of England . Retrieved 19 January 2008.

[fraudster-5] CASE OF FOXLEY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM (Application no. 33274/96) - JUDGMENT, Strasbourg: European Court of Human Rights, 20 June 2000

[guardian-20190623-6] Rob Evans; David Pegg (23 June 2019). "Airbus shuts down subsidiary at centre of bribery investigation". The Guardian. Retrieved 12 January 2020.

[7] "GPT Special Project Management Ltd".

[privateeye-1978-8] Richard Brooks; Andrew Bousfield (2014). "Shady Arabia and the Desert Fix" (PDF). Private Eye. Issue 1375. Retrieved 12 January 2020.

[privateeye-paulfootaward-9] "Paul Foot Award". Private Eye. Retrieved 12 January 2020.

[10] Pegg, David; Evans, Rob (27 November 2023). "UK ministers approved £60m payments to Saudi royals to maintain arms deal, court told". The Guardian.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]