Lawyer Accused of Taking £500,000 Bribe In Property Dispute

Andrew Thornhill QC, a leading tax lawyer, was paid a bribe of £500,000 to act in a biased way to resolve a family property dispute, the high court has heard.

The former head of Pump Court Tax Chambers in London has been accused of taking the payment from one side in the dispute despite being appointed as an independent expert to resolve the confrontation fairly.

Thornhill, who is renowned for his expertise on tax law and remuneration schemes, denies all wrongdoing in a complex legal battle. The payment, which was investigated by the Charity Commission, has still not been paid back more than seven years later, it is alleged.

His accuser, Joseph Ackerman, is seeking to overturn a previous high court judgment exonerating Thornhill’s role in a “very bitter and acrimonious family dispute over ownership of a very substantial and long-established property portfolio”.

The submission, by lawyers for Ackerman, alleges: “In the course of his appointment, [Thornhill] received a payment of £500,000 in December 2008 from one side to the dispute.

“The payment was not disclosed or known to the other side.”

They say the money was channeled through a charity, Raleigh Limited, with which the Ackerman family are involved. The payment, also described as a loan, resulted in a Charity Commission inquiry.

The submission on behalf of Joseph Ackerman added: “While [Thornhill] should have been acting independently and fairly, he had been taking and retaining a payment from a company controlled by” Barry and Naomi Ackerman, the son and sister-in-law of Joseph Ackerman.

Responding to the accusations, John Wardell QC, representing Barry and Naomi Ackerman, said Thornhill had been head of a top tax chambers and his earnings were “chunky”.

“Put yourself in Barry Ackerman’s shoes,” Wardell suggested. “Would you think that £500,000 is enough for a leading tax silk? … And if you are taking a bribe, it would seem naive to take it in your own name. And if it was a bribe, you would not expect it to be converted into a loan with interest.

“How do you reconcile using a charity to make a bribe, thereby exposing yourself to greater oversight? The allegation of a bribe is nothing more than wishful thinking. There was no attempt to keep Mr Thornhill’s interest secret or under the carpet.”

Wardell said that during the process of reconciling the family dispute, there had been “no round-the-table meetings”. He added: “All the meetings were with one side or another. It was shuttle diplomacy.”

Graeme McPherson QC, representing Thornhill, said the judge in the original trial, then Mr Justice Vos, had found Thornhill to be an “entirely credible witness”.

McPherson added: “Mr Thornhill is said to have deceived the Charity Commission [over the payment]. We say that’s a complete mischaracterisation of events … Thornhill wrote to the Charity Commission saying he believed the documents had already been disclosed and said that they could contact his solicitors.”

Professional disciplinary charges against Thornhill, relating to the Charity Commission inquiry, are due to be heard by the Bar Standards Board. They have been suspended pending the outcome of the high court case.

The case continues.

–The Guardian