Theresa May and her constituency party received political donations totalling almost £20,000 from a company run by a construction tycoon who was later convicted of paying bribes to Saddam Hussein’s regime.

Annual donations were accepted by May’s Maidenhead constituency party between 2003 and 2006 despite Guardian investigations that highlighted corruption allegations levelled at David Mabey’s bridge manufacturing business.

The Guardian view on Theresa May: new PM, same old problems | Editorial Read more

Some of the donations, which came from a Mabey subsidiary called Beachley Property Ltd, were accepted even after it was reported in December 2005 that the Serious Fraud Office had begun looking into allegations of kickback payments in Iraq from another corner of the tycoon’s business empire. He was found guilty of corruption in 2011, receiving an eight-month sentence.

The general election of 2005 was a critical time for May, who was defending a majority of just 3,284. Her seat had been targeted by Liberal Democrats, prompting wealthy Tory donors, including Michael Ashcroft, to inject additional funds into her campaign coffers.



Parliament’s register of members’ interests shows May declared donations in 2005 from two companies separately controlled by Lord Ashcroft and Mabey. The filings do not explain how much of Beachley’s donations to Maidenhead Conservatives was spent on May’s campaigning or her work as an MP.



Asked if the prime minister had ever met Mabey or discussed with him bribery allegations made about his business, a spokesperson for May declined to comment. “Maidenhead Conservative Association received these donations between 2003 and 2006, in full compliance with electoral law,” the spokesperson said. “The court case referred to took place a number of years after the donations were made to the association.”

Mabey, 54, who together with his family has a fortune estimated at £214m, briefly became Britain’s richest convict in 2011 after he was sentenced to eight months in prison for his part in making corrupt payments from a company called Mabey & Johnson, in breach of UN sanctions, ten years earlier. He was also disqualified from acting as a company director for two years.



Mabey was furious at being targeted for prosecution by the SFO and has always insisted that, while corrupt payments had been made by M&J, he had never known about them. But a jury at Southwark crown court found otherwise, and his subsequent appeal efforts failed. The jury had heard how in 2001, M&J won a €4.2m (then £2.6m) contract from the Iraqi ministry of construction to supply 13 steel modular bridges. Bribes representing 10% of the cost of the contract were secretly paid into bank accounts in Jordan.

Two years before Mabey’s conviction, multiple findings of bribery linked to M&J contracts around the world had led to the company pleading guilty to making corrupt payments – not just in Iraq, but also in Jamaica and Ghana. M&J was ordered to pay fines, legal costs and reparations to foreign governments totalling £6.6m.

In court, the SFO argued there had been a culture of bribery (pdf) within M&J, sanctioned by certain directors. This was denied. The prosecution alleged there had been corrupt payments linked to M&J in other countries – including Angola, Madagascar and Mozambique – though no charges were brought in relation to these claims.

After Mabey was found guilty in 2011 of his role in corrupt payments over the Iraqi contract, Judge Geoffrey Rivlin QC said of him: “When a director of a major company plays even a small part, he can expect to receive a custodial sentence.”

Mabey could not be reached for comment, but in a statement Mabey Group – which is still ultimately owned by him and his family – said: “Since 2010, following the conclusion of the historic bribery and corruption issues, Mabey companies have been managed in a different way with an independent chairman and executive management team, and extensive and approved procedures to prevent bribery and corruption. Historically the company’s former management donated to their local constituency party, but the last political party donation was made in 2006 and the company policy now is not to make political donations.”