What do the latest Epstein revelations mean for Peter Mandelson?
The Labour peer faces possible investigation after disclosures show emails sent to disgraced financier containing confidential information
The Met police have said they are considering whether to launch a criminal investigation into Peter Mandelson after fresh disclosures from the Jeffrey Epstein files. Which laws could he potentially be accused of breaking and on what basis?
What could Mandelson be accused of?
The Met have said they have received a number of reports relating to possible misconduct in public office. The SNP and Reform UK reported Mandelson to the police to investigate any possible offences. Emily Thornberry, the Labour chair of the foreign affairs select committee, also said she believed his apparent actions should merit a criminal inquiry.
What were the revelations that led to this point?
The new disclosures from the Epstein files appeared to suggest Mandelson sent emails to the late sex offender containing confidential information that the government was receiving to deal with the global financial crash while he was business secretary under Gordon Brown. They are thought to have included:
A confidential UK government document outlining £20bn in asset sales.
Mandelson claiming he was “trying hard” to change government policy on bankers’ bonuses.
An imminent bailout package for the euro the day before it was announced in 2010.
A suggestion that the JPMorgan boss “mildly threaten” the chancellor.
What is required to prove misconduct in public office?
A 2004 court of appeal case said the constituent elements of the common law offence were:
A public officer acting as such.
[Who] wilfully neglects to perform his duty and/or wilfully misconducts himself.
To such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public’s trust in the office holder.
Without reasonable excuse or justification.
The offence has been widely criticised for being ill-defined and lacking clarity. It is in the process of being replaced by a new statutory offence. The current offence carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.
According to a Spotlight on Corruption report from last year, there are fewer than 100 prosecutions for the offence each year and a few dozen convictions. Its analysis of those convicted since 2014 identified no members of government. Most convicted were police or prison officers. An attempt to bring a private prosecution for the offence against Boris Johnson for allegedly telling lies during the 2016 referendum campaign was thrown out by judges in 2019.
Are there other offences Mandelson could be investigated for?
Other documents appeared to show Epstein paid a total of $75,000 (£65,000) into bank accounts of which Mandelson – then a Labour MP – was believed to be a beneficiary. The documents also suggest Epstein sent Mandelson’s partner, now his husband, Reinaldo Avila da Silva, £10,000 in September 2009 to fund an osteopathy course and other expenses.
In a Times interview before the latest allegations came to light, Mandelson admitted to a “lapse in judgment” over Epstein’s payment to da Silva at the time the government was dealing with the global financial crisis but rejected the suggestion this left him open to bribery claims, with the disgraced financier lobbying him to change banker bonus rules.
Mandelson said: “There was non-stop discussion from the entire industry about reforming the banks and how to strike the right balance in regulation.”
If Mandelson did leak plans for the government’s proposed £20bn sale of assets, he could potentially be investigated for market abuse as such information could be used in the trading of UK government bonds. There are civil offences, that carry unlimited fines, and criminal offences, under the Criminal Justice Act 1993, carrying a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison. The criminal offence applies where “an individual who has information as an insider … discloses the information, otherwise than in the proper performance of the functions of his employment, office or profession, to another person”.
Mandelson said none of the recently released Epstein files “indicate wrongdoing or misdemeanour on my part”.