In-depth investigation and analysis of the stories behind the day's headlines with Evan Davis.
Browse content similar to 07/11/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!
Another fine mess...
The Government's coping,
or striving to cope,
with one mishap after another.
Is it really capable of driving
the country into a new Brexit era?
I think the problem is you've now
got five Cabinet ministers,
the former Defence Secretary,
the current Defence Secretary,
the Foreign Secretary,
the Development Secretary
and the First Secretary,
all now mired in serious
controversies of one
form or another.
We'll be asking if yet
another minister could be
gone by the morning.
Also tonight, Prince Charles
lobbied for a change
in carbon trading rules -
without pointing out that the Duchy
of Cornwall had invested
in a company that stood to benefit.
We'll ask a former Chairman
of the Committee of Standards
in Public Life why he thinks
that's a problem.
We'll have a special report
about what the Paradise Papers
have revealed in Angola.
Oil money, which might have been
used to help some of the poorest
people in the world,
has ended up making
one man super rich.
Although the border is only just
there, where those signs are,
a couple of hundred yards,
it's not an easy place
for journalists to go.
Particularly when the subject
of our investigation is the son
of the President and someone very
close to him.
Accidents happen in government.
People slip on banana skins.
There are momentary lapses,
or arguments that spill
into the public domain.
Events can catch
Cabinets by surprise.
At a rate of one every few months.
But then there's this Government.
Since the election knocked
the confidence out of
the Prime Minister five months ago,
to many it has just lurched from one
self-inflicted wound to another.
Public arguments over
Brexit are half of it,
the harassment cases have piled
on the pressure.
But the coincidence of extra
missteps has given this
Government a whiff of decay.
And you're not meant to have
that until you've been
in power for a decade or more.
Two particular things
are exercising many MPs right now.
The Foreign Secretary giving
the unhelpful impression that
a British woman imprisoned in Iran
is guilty of crimes there.
And the other is Development
Secretary Priti Patel,
who clearly tried to mislead
the public about her
activities in Israel.
This is a far more intense
speculation this evening.
An unlucky government,
or a careless one.
Nick Watt reports.
Day by day, piece by piece, the
forces holding this Government
together are fracturing. There is an
unmistakable air of weakness and
fragility, as Theresa May struggles
to assert her authority.
got five Cabinet ministers - the
former Defence Secretary, the
current Defence Secretary, the
Foreign Secretary, the development
secretary, and the first Akrotiri,
all now mired in serious
controversies of one form or
another. And in each case, the Prime
Minister is unable to get a grip of
it and unable to provide a sense of
And today, Downing Street
was mopping up after not one but two
Cabinet ministers gave the Prime
Minister grief of a highly sensitive
We are going to
It took Boris Johnson
nearly an hour in the Commons
chamber to offer an apology for the
loose language which may have added
to the prison sentence in Teheran
handed down to the British-Iranian
woman Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe.
sorry if any words of mine have been
so taken out of context and
misconstrued as to cause any kind of
anxiety for the family of Nazanin
Zaghari-Ratcliffe, of course I am.
Of course I am.
Shortly before the
Foreign Secretary's appearance, one
of Prydie Patel's deputies had to
explain why she held a series of
official meetings in Israel during
her summer holiday without first
notifying the Foreign Office or
The Secretary of
State has been very clear and
absolutely contrite in her statement
yesterday. She recognises that of
course she sure to have informed the
Foreign Office before the visit, but
Downing Street is doing
little to disguise its frustration
with the two wayward Cabinet
ministers. In the eyes of many
ministers, Boris Johnson and Priti
Patel have both lived down
expectations. The Foreign Secretary
has caused heartache for the family
of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe with
his careless language, whilst the
International Development Secretary
has shown that even in the world of
high diplomacy, she believes she can
live by her own rules.
question is, there is no sense of
direction, no sense of grip in any
of these controversies coming from
the Prime Minister, at a time when
we really need a functioning Cabinet
and this affects our reputation
around the world when we have such
important international negotiations
at stake. This is really damaging
for the whole country, not just for
the Conservative Party.
MPs believe this has not been the
Goverment's finest hour.
I've got to
be honest about it, neither of these
scenarios are ideal. Prydie Patel,
from what I can gather, did inform
the Foreign Office, albeit whilst
she was in Israel on this visit. But
in relation to the Foreign Secretary
Cosme comments, I'm not here to
defend those comments. I think, you
know, it is tricky and difficult to
do that. What I think we should
remember, though, is that the real
criminals here are the Iranian
regime who are holding somebody, you
know, against all natural justice,
for the average over foreign
-- for the average.
Battered by events and headstrong
Cabinet ministers, Theresa May's
Government limps on. For the moment,
it is intact. But the damage is
taking its toll. Nick Watt there.
Accidents don't happen, they are
caused, the old phrase goes.
Nick Watt is with me now.
Next, it's been a bad day for Boris
Johnson. But a much worse one for
Priti Patel, we gather, this
evening. Quite a lot of speculation
about her future.
That's right. She
is still the international developer
and secretary. She recently arrived
in the next few hours to Africa for
a long planned trip. But some very,
very serious questions are being
asked in the heart of Government
about Priti Patel and what actually
she declared for this trip to
Israel. And Priti Patel will be
very, very lucky if she is still in
the gambit micro by the end of this
week. I think the thinking is -- if
she is still in the Cabinet. If new
details emerged about this visit,
perhaps elements of this trip that
she didn't declare fully to the
Prime Minister, I think she will no
longer be a member of the Cabinet.
That information has not yet been
presented, it is not yet there are,
as I understand it, at the highest
levels of Government. But they are
thinking that if there is more
information that wasn't the Clare...
Can use tag a Cabinet minister
whilst they are overseas on official
business, what happens? -- can you
sag a Cabinet minister.
be a discussion between said, by
criminals than the premise that, as
I understand it. That information is
not sitting in Downing Street, and
it may not get there, but bit by bit
more information is coming out. For
example, the Prime Minister did not
know, until our BBC colleague James
Landale revealed on the today
programme this morning, that Priti
Patel tried to change Government
policy on the Golan Heights. She saw
the work that the Israeli defence
forces are doing in helping Syrian
refugees who come onto the Golan
Heights. The UK Government says the
IDF is doing very, very serious
work. But of course, as Alistair
Burt, her ministerial colleagues,
said in the Commons today, the UK
can't help the Israeli defence
forces because the UK has never
recognised the Israeli annexation of
the goal of heights. That sort of
thing, there is more information
that comes out, then it will be very
difficult for her -- the annexation
of the Golan Heights.
In a few minutes, we'll talk
to Labour's Tulip Siddiq.
is her constituent.
She is currently in jail in Iraq,
very important set of questions for
Boris Johnson -- in Iran.
But first, the Conservative MP
Nadhim Zahawi is here.
He is a member of the Foreign
Affairs Select Committee.
Good evening to you. I'm assuming
you think it's not possible to
remain a Secretary of State if you
have lied and misled the public on
this matter was ill and Priti Patel
was on a family holiday paid for by
She met ministers as well
as many charities and some very
interesting start-ups who are, you
know, working in Africa, which she
is passionate about. She is in
She took a working
She is a workaholic, that is
what she is like. The Foreign Office
knew that whilst the trip was
ongoing... The white they found out
that she would does -- she was
visiting... I think are apology, she
was contrite about not going through
the right procedures. Because you
need to make sure that you do that.
I didn't focus on the offence of
breaking the ministerial code by
going to Israel and conducting your
own foreign policy, I was focusing
on the misleading of the public. She
said, Boris knew about the visit.
The point is, the Foreign Office did
know about this, Boris knew about
the trip. In fact, yesterday we were
told he did become aware of it, but
not in advance. Now, wouldn't you
say that she was misleading the
public, or even lying, when she said
that Boris did know about the trip?
Well, that was her interview with
the Guardian. The Guardian
subsequently corrected that
published every interview that she
There was another set of
misleading... She said, the stuff is
out there, the stuff that is out
there is it as far as I'm concerned.
She hadn't at that stage mentioned
that she had met the Israeli Prime
Minister on her holiday, you know,
as one does. Did that slip her mind,
or was she trying to mislead when
she said that the stuff that is out
there is it as forestry is concerned
with the well, I think what we know
already is that
she had those
meetings, the Foreign Office knew
during her trip that those
I'm talking about the
way that she tried to mislead the
public. Do you think misleading the
public is a sackable offence or not
Brazil and she apologised to the
Prime Minister, and corrected all of
with a statement. You know, I
think those things...
Hang on, she
apologised or corrected herself
after it was discovered. She didn't
correct it and say, by the way, I've
accidentally misled you. If
effectively, she came out when it
was all in the public domain.
Doesn't that mean what she was doing
was trying to get away with
minimising her breach of the
ministerial code, quite a serious
one, and then, when she is caught,
she says, sorry, I miss spoke. That
is a sackable offence, isn't it?
Beverley Hughes in 2004 went through
a similar thing. Peter Mandelson in
the Hindu decays, you didn't like he
was is, rated, -- he didn't lie, he
was exonerated, but people thought
that he had lied and he had to
You are talking about these
cases. Israel is one of our closest
partners. This is not an enemy state
that she was somehow having
clandestine meetings with. The
Foreign Office knew during this trip
that she was having these visits.
She has admitted the mistake of not
following procedure and apologised
for it. I somehow feel that some of
this stuff is being drummed up
because both Priti Patel and the
Foreign Secretary of big beasts in
the Brexit campaign and there are
remembers if you think, if we can
take out these people and Israel by
-- derail the government...
bring in Tulip Siddiq on this one.
Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe is a
constituent of yours. How damaging
the comments that Boris Johnson
Extremely damaging. My
constituent has been imprisoned in
Iran for 18 years now. She's been in
solitary confinement, separated from
her baby daughter and denied access
to medical treatment. Boris Johnson,
in front of the Select Committee,
even though I have raised this case
countless times in the last 18
months, and repeatedly said that my
constituent was on holiday in Iran,
said that she was training
journalists. I would expect our
Foreign Secretary to know that basic
facts of a very important case.
actual words were, he said, she was
simply teaching people journalism,
as I understand it, at the very
limit. His defence is, he was
saying, at the worst she was
teaching journalism and even that
doesn't justify putting him in jail.
I wonder if those words at the limit
get him off, because he was meaning
to say something along the lines of,
you know, that's not my view, that's
the view, and is not a dust of a
That is absolutely not a
good defence in my opinion. --
his words have been seized upon by
the Iranian judiciary system. If you
look on their website, they have
said that this shows clearly that
this woman was not on holiday in
Iran. As a result, she could be
facing fresh charges against her. We
on this side of the world,
especially the Foreign Secretary,
should be getting our constituent
back here at home in West Hampstead,
not increasing the charges against
I'll tell you what I'd like,
we've only got another minute, I'd
like to get a comment from you both
on whether this multiple sort of
issues around harassment, Boris
Johnson, the Foreign Secretary,
Priti Patel, is telling us there is
some decay in this Government.
Tulip, is it a bigger vulnerability
for this Government?
I think it
shows the Government is weak. The
Prime Minister needs to take action
quickly. But my focus this week is
bringing my constituent back home,
and the Foreign Secretary needs to
retract his statement, fly out to
Iran, meet her, and bring her back
to her house, where she belongs.
lot of people, even friends of the
party, they are saying, we can't
have five years of this, this just
can't go wild.
I think the Prime
Minister has been very thoughtful in
her speech to the CBI this week --
this can't go on. It was well
received by the CBI. On Boris, he
has apologised and called his
counterpart and sought reassurances.
His words weren't in any way
affecting Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe.
I'm glad julep wants to focus on
higher, we should put her front and
centre of this. I'm sad that the
front bench on the other side were
giggling as soon as Emily Thornberry
finished her speech. You know,
making political hay out of this.
This will only encourage the IR GC,
who was a real culprits, remember
who the culprits are. They will
The man is Foreign
Secretary of our country. He should
not be repeating them mendacious
comments made by the Iranian
Revolutionary guard, which is what
he was doing in the Select
Committee. He should know better.
need to leave it there. Thank you so
much. We could talk a great deal
longer about this.
A former member of the Welsh
Government who resigned last week
in light of allegations made
against him has been found dead.
He is understood to have
taken his own life.
Carl Seargent lost his job
as Cabinet Secretary for Communities
and Children last Friday.
He was suspended from Labour
after the First Minister,
Carwyn Jones, learned of a number
of alleged incidents
The death has obviously been
a great shock to members
of the Welsh Assembly,
who suspended proceedings
Chris Cook reports.
There was rare consensus today in
Cardiff Bay and throughout Labour.
Sadness at the death of Carl
Sargeant who is believed to have
taken his own life. The former Welsh
Cabinet minister left his post last
week pending an investigation into
Shocked, horrified and
deeply sympathetic to his family and
the statement they put out was that
he was the glue that held them
altogether and I can only think for
the moment of the stress and horror
they are going through. He was
somebody who represented our party,
worked hard to represent community
and my deepest sympathies are with
Carl Sargeant held a range of
post since being elected in 2003
culminating in a Cabinet post for
communities and children.
been a member of the Welsh
Government for ten years, he served
as Chief Whip and then held a
variety of sensitive political roles
and I think it is fair to say that
half the legislation roughly passed
in the last six years would have
been passed through his hands, some
quite ground-breaking stuff around
domestic violence and future
Last week Carl Sargeant
agreed to stand down from the Welsh
Cabinet while Labour investigated
allegations about his behaviour.
Carwyn Jones, the First Minister,
explained I asked by office to speak
to the women involved to provide
details of those incidents. As a
result of the conversations I felt I
had no choice but to refer the
matter to the party.
asked me to speak on their behalf
They do not want to dwell on
the allegations that were made
against him but clearly those have
had an impact on his mental state in
recent days and all of us who have
been in contact with him have been
Friends, comrades, first of
all a big thank you...
We have heard
concerns from high up within Welsh
Labour about the treatment of Carl
Sargeant why the claims were
investigated. Friends say that this
morning he only knew the outline of
the allegations. Carl Sargeant is
survived by a widow and two
children. Chris Kirk.
Over the last few days, we've had
stories about Lewis Hamilton,
Lord Ashcroft and the Queen,
all thrown up by the leak
of the so-called "Paradise Papers" -
documents which were obtained
by the German newspaper
Sueddeutsche Zeitung and shared
with the International Consortium
of Investigative Journalists.
The reporting has been led
in the UK by BBC Panorama
and The Guardian newspaper.
There is no doubt as to which of
today's Paradise Papers stories
is getting most of the attention:
It is the one about Prince Charles,
an undisclosed investment
in a sustainable forestry company,
and some active campaigning
for its interests.
Now, in contrast to the revelations
about the Queen's investments
in Bermuda, there was here
a potential conflict of interest
in the public work of the Prince,
and the private holdings.
It was February, 2007 that the Duchy
of Cornwall bought shares
in a Bermuda company called
Sustainable Forestry Management,
SFM, for $113,500.
It sold the shares 16 months later
for almost three times the price.
Nothing wrong with that, it was
clearly a lucrative investment.
It was also an unsurprising
investment, since the Prince himself
is said to be actively involved
in running the Duchy.
One of his best friends,
the late Hugh Van Cutson
was on the board of the company
and it touched on a subject
that was obviously dear
to his heart, but interestingly,
it was all kept very hush-hush.
The board unanimously agreed
that the subscription by the Duchy
of Cornwall can be kept confidential
except in respect of any
disclosure required by law.
OK, so no one wanted
to publicise his involvement.
There followed a number of public
interventions, including this.
The immediate priority, I believe,
is the need to develop
a new credit market,
which will give a true value
to carbon and the ecosystem services
that rainforests provide the rest
of the world.
Other speeches went further,
specifically on an issue that
mattered to the company, SFM.
It's complex, but it was
whether the market in carbon credits
created under EU rules
and the Kyoto Protocol
should recognise pay-outs
for the preservation
of tropical rainforests.
Not only did this matter to SFM,
but the company prepared lobbying
papers for the Prince.
Who spoke to the European Commission
and the European Parliament,
obviously no MEP listening to him
would have been allowed to make such
a pitch without disclosing
the financial interest in it.
No MP here would be either.
Should the Prince be able to?
Should his investments be
kept secret and should
he be lobbying anyway?
In response to the story,
Clarence House said...
Joining me now from Leeds is
the former Chairman of the Committee
on Standards in Public Life,
Sir Alistair Graham.
Good evening to you. Can you explain
the conflict of interest you
referred to earlier today as regards
I believe the conflict is
that if any public official or in
this case a member of the Royal
Family decides to lobby on an issue,
then they should have a duty to
declare any financial interest they
have in the issue that they are
lobbying about, which did not happen
in this case.
I think a lot of
people would say that Prince Charles
would very likely have lobbied on an
issue like that because he takes
such an interest in things like
sustainable forests and it is
perfectly logical that he would
lobby out without having a financial
I do not see why a
member of the Royal Family should be
different from any public official
who signs up to the seven principles
of public life, which very clearly
spell out that if you have got a
financial interest, you have to
declare that. There has to be total
transparency about your interests in
a matter that you are trying to
influence public policy, so I don't
see why a member of the Royal Family
should be different to any other
public official. If they want to
seek to change government or
Would you like
the code to be extended to members
of the Royal Family or
would you rather say, we should not
need a code for the Royal Family,
they should just know this kind of
thing of what works and what does
not and they should be automatically
above all that anyway?
expect members of the Royal Family
to have the highest possible ethical
standards in these matters and of
course normally most members of the
Royal Family do not get involved in
public policy issues, however,
Prince Charles has a history of
doing that and I personally have no
objection in that, but if in fact he
wants to continue, then I think he
does have to meet the standards that
are required of every other public
official and that means I accept
that he does not direct what his
financial investment is, but before
he speaks on a policy, he should
check with his officials with the
Duchy of Cornwall about whether they
have any investments that would put
him in an embarrassing conflict
We do not know whether he
knew he had money invested in this
company but we do know that his
friend who was a director had
written to him with some of this
lobbying material that was making
the case for this change in carbon
trading. Even if he did not know he
had the investment, merely on the
grounds that his friend had given
him some lobbying material without
the conflict of interest in itself?
I think a potentially could be,
because you're open to the charge or
the perception that you are pursuing
someone else's argument rather than
necessarily your own. But I do think
the crucial thing in this particular
instance was not the lobbying
documents but the timing of the
lobbying was shortly after the
investment. And therefore, there was
bound to be, if the information
became public, a perception of a
conflict of interests. And I would
have thought Prince Charles being a
man of highest integrity would have
seen that that would be an
embarrassing situation and he should
have checked whether there was any
investment that produced a potential
Thank you for joining us.
Now, without diminishing any
in the Paradise Papers relating
to the Royals, the super rich,
TV stars or VAT-avoiding
racing drivers, it may be
that we are giving too little
attention to another side of this
world of offshore finance.
It's one that has massive
implications for the citizens
of countries far poorer than ours,
because in this leak of documents
we can see how it's possible to take
revenues or resources that belong
to poor nations and expropriate
them for private use.
Our reporter David Grossman has been
one of the international team
of journalists examining
the Paradise Papers,
and has been looking specifically
at the management of Angola's
sovereign wealth fund.
It is designed help develop
the country and provide a future
income when the country's oil
reserves run out.
It appears though that the level
of management fees charged
and the choice of investments
is making one individual close
to the Angolan regime
a great deal of money.
Angola manages a curious double.
Its capital, Luanda,
is officially the most expensive
city in the world to visit.
But the country is
one of the poorest.
One reason for this is corruption.
Investigating the financial
interests of Angola's rulers
is usually an impossible task.
Although the border's only just over
there where those signs are,
a couple of hundred yards from here,
it's not an easy place
for journalists to go,
particularly when the subject
of our investigation
is the son of the President
and somebody very close to him.
Fortunately, though, we've got
a huge pile of leaked data -
sensitive financial information that
throws a window open
into that closed world.
Although Jose Eduardo dos Santos
stood down as President after 38
years in the summer,
it was to his chosen successor.
Many believe the move was more
about preserving power,
not handing it over.
In Angola, power comes from money,
and money comes from oil.
And while he was in office,
President dos Santos ruthlessly
controlled that well.
His daughter, Isabel,
known as Africa's richest woman,
with an estimated wealth
of $3.5 billion, was,
at the stroke of her father's pen,
made head of the state oil company,
His son, Jose Filomeno dos Santos,
known as Zenu, was appointed
to another position -
again, by the President.
$5 billion of oil money was placed
in a sovereign wealth fund,
the Fundo Soberano de
Angola, or FSDEA.
And Zenu was put in charge.
The process was not transparent
according to normal standards
anywhere in the world.
But what was transparent
for the people of Angola
was that the only criteria why
he was selected, it was because he
was the son of the President.
He had no training, no experience,
no special qualifications.
The fund appointed a company called
Quantum Global to manage its money.
It is majority-owned
by Jean-Claude Bastos,
a Swiss-Angolan businessman
who is a close friend and at that
time was a business partner of Zenu.
We see only one asset management
firm in charge of the vast majority
of the fund's assets.
And it's unusual for
a number of reasons.
And the principal one is that funds
want to hedge the risk.
You don't want to put
all your eggs in one basket.
You want to spread your eggs over
a number of baskets.
In general, the Angolan fund,
and I think this is true of a lot
of the funds that sort of score
poorly on transparency
and accountability indicators,
one of the things that they have
in common is the lack of rules
around who the managers are,
how the managers are chosen,
and what assets the fund can invest
in and what it can't invest in.
We asked FSDEA how Quantum Global
was selected as the main
No one wanted to be interviewed
for this programme.
But in a statement, they said...
Mr Bastos also told us...
Mr Bastos first applied to manage
the money from Jersey.
But the authorities there thought
he was too close to the President's
son to be independent.
We've seen the internal report
into his application,
which also noted...
Mr Bastos turned to another island
to manage the fund's investments.
Where it once farmed sugar,
Mauritius now farms money.
It's an offshore tax haven.
And it's here that Mr Bastos left
three of the $5 billion to invest
in seven funds he created.
Using the services of the law firm
Appleby, based in this
building in Port Louis,
Mr Bastos set up Quantum Global
Appleby, as you may have seen
in the news, suffered a huge data
leak of highly sensitive
information, revealed this week.
The leak was obtained
by the German newspaper
who shared it with the
of Investigative Journalists.
The BBC has been researching it,
along with the Guardian newspaper.
For the last nine months,
we've been putting together
information from the leak
with publicly available sources,
and talking to insiders.
As a result, we have managed
to piece together much of what's
going on inside the management
of the sovereign
wealth fund's money.
The first thing to look
at is the management fees
Quantum Global was paid for managing
the seven Mauritius-based funds.
Between 2% and 2.5%
of the $3 billion every year.
In just 20 months, the company
was paid $92 million.
Over this time, most of that
money was not invested,
but sat in bank accounts.
At the end of 2015,
QGIAM had invested just
$407 million of the $7 billion.
At the end of 2016, that figure had
gone up to $433 million.
In other words, during 2016,
an additional $26 million
was invested by the seven funds.
Over this period, Quantum Global
was paid around $70 million in fees.
So, what we see in that case...
Is that unheard-of?
The question I'd be asking is,
is the Angolan fund getting
its value for money?
If you are making...
If you're paying those
types of management fees,
you must be getting extraordinary
service for that.
And if I were the Angolan fund
managers, I would be asking,
are we getting an extraordinary
service or not?
Both Mr Bastos and the funds say
the management fees are reasonable.
What happened to them,
though, may, in according
to industry insiders,
be an indication that
they were set too high.
Because of the leak,
we can see that $41 million
of the $92 million of management
fees was paid out as dividends.
In other words, it was profit.
It went to a company called
QG Investments Limited
in the British Virgin Islands.
This is owned by White Nite Limited,
also in the British Virgin Islands.
Which is owned by Green Trees
Incorporated, in the Seychelles.
And this company is
owned by Mr Bastos.
Of the rest, $34 million
was paid to another company,
Quantum Global Alternative
Part of the Quantum Global Group
of which Mr Bastos
is the majority owner.
So, the documents that I saw reveal
a complex financial structure.
But they reveal a complex financial
structure which doesn't,
on the face of it, seem illegal,
but highly opaque, that allows
somebody who wants to hide gains
that they are making,
shall we say, rather than illicitly,
hide those gains and hide who owns
what company and who is
receiving what payments.
The videos on Mr Bastos's personal
YouTube channel portray
a dynamic entrepreneur
with many financial interests.
Go out as you are a dreamer
and follow your dreams.
Be courageous, and do not give up.
So, what did Mr Bastos
invest the sovereign
wealth fund's money in?
During the 20 months
covered by the leak,
we can see evidence that he made six
investments in hotels
But three of the investments
were in projects in which Mr Bastos
has a personal stake.
For example, there is a $157
million hotel complex
in Angola's capital,
It is to be built on land
owned by Mr Bastos,
and by a company owned by Mr Bastos.
We have spoken to an insider
with knowledge of the deal,
who told us that Quantum Global
appointed independent analysts
to go over the deal.
They concluded it wasn't a good one
for the Angolan people's money.
The projected returns were too low,
and the costs too high.
And yet, the investment
So, the difference between private
equity and venture capitalism...
Mr Bastos clearly knows
a lot about making money.
But what's not clear is why a man
who was prosecuted in Switzerland,
a man with a web of complex
was given the opportunity
to make what appears,
from this leak at least,
to be so much money
from the Angolan people's fund?
This is a balance of cash
being carried into bank
accounts in Switzerland.
This is fees being charged here,
earnings being made there,
to benefit, it would appear,
one particular individual.
Why is he in this favoured position?
What connections does he have?
Where does the money go onward
from him and from his companies?
At this stage, certainly
from documents I've
seen, we don't know.
But there will clearly be some other
connection that justifies him
being in the position that he is in.
Mr Bastos, though,
insisted that the hotel
investment was viable.
He denied there was any conflict
of interest, saying...
The FSDEA told us...
Meanwhile, in Luanda,
where a man skims a flooded crater
for the mosquito larvae which causes
yellow fever, malaria and Zika,
it's not hard to see
where the money could be spent.
This hospital in Cazenga
is overwhelmed by patients.
Some have had to buy their own drugs
and equipment from hawkers outside.
These are the people the Angolan
sovereign wealth fund
is supposed to be helping.
David Grossman joins me now.
David, you've been working a couple
of months on that piece from the
Paradise Papers. But evidence that
this isn't the only story of this
kind. This angle the case.
indeed. We focused a lot on these
jurisdictions and the impact on the
super-rich, when actually it may be
that they have more impact on the
Super Bowl, particularly in
developing countries that maybe,
like Angola, resource rich but lack
of expertise and capital to exploit
those resources. In many cases, they
invite in multinationals, and those
companies find that multinationals
are very good at shifting profit out
of the company so they do not pay
tax, and into offshore
jurisdictions. I visited Namibia as
part of an investigation for the BBC
World Service assignment programme
and Radio 4, and I found that even
though it has the richest fishing
waters in that part of the world and
on the planet, the Finance Minister
told me they cannot make enough on
taxing fishing to pay for the
furniture of the fishing industry,
the regulation, the patrol boats.
One of the people that we met told
us there is a vast sinkhole down
which Africa's tax revenues are
disappearing, that is the
jurisdiction of Mauritius.
Time now for Viewsnight -
where we give original thinkers
the space to get something
off their chest.
And in the run up to
Stephanie Boland, has this
on wearing the poppy.
Stephanie Boland for Viewsnight.
Let's take a quick look with Nick on
the latest on Priti Patel, what is
Development Secretary will be having
a very awkward phone conversation
with the Prime Minister in the
morning. As I understand it, there
is a feeling in Whitehall that there
was at least one extra meeting that
Priti Patel did not tell the Prime
Minister she had had with Israeli
officials after she came back from
Israel in August. She did not, it is
alleged, told the Prime Minister
about this on Monday when she met
her. The feeling from number ten is
that if more information comes out
and they will have to take a very,
very careful look. A very difficult
conversation tomorrow morning, I'm
Clearly a moving story there.
That is all we have time for
tonight. I suspect that we will
return to that tomorrow. In the
meantime, good night.