I think the only *illegal* act she committed was the failure to reduce her claim for mortgage costs when her interest rate went down.

I don't think anything else she did was actually *illegal* as it was all within what the parliamentary expenses system allowed at the time, was it not?

She certainly committed *immoral* acts and should rightly be held to account (and have resigned immediately over them) but at the time she did the "flipping" of her main residence in order to take advantage of maximising her mortgage claim she was allowed to do that under what were then the rules.

And the rules for HM customs and Revenue "primary residence" rules for Capital Gains Tax were completely independent from those governing MP expenses. It was quite legal at the time to declare one residence as "primary" for CGT purposes and another "primary" for parliamentary expenses purposes.

The fact that she used those rules as they stood at the time to make a huge personal financial gain *wasn't* illegal....but it was *definitely* immoral and against the spirit of how parliament *should* operate.

So I agree she should have gone....and have gone a lot earlier. I think that, morally, she should also pay back the personal gains she made. But unless I've misunderstood the whole way the system operated back when she did these things, there wasn't any case for prosecuting her for criminal fraud, other than possibly the failure to declare interest rate changes.

You're the lawyer Richard, and I'll bow to your superior knowledge of the law on that....it's just my understanding of it and I'm interested to know if I'm wrong.