-
Yeah fair point, I'd not thought of that angle - seems manageable as long as they only aggressively pursue cases where there appears to be fraud though? And the alternative is 'we can't stop fraud as asking questions will scare people off' - which is obviously wrong
andyfallsoff-
only aggressively pursue cases where there appears to be fraud though?
See Branwen's comment:
Can't imagine that anyone defrauding on any scale would be stupid enough to not do it through a company that could be have been liquidated by now, and avoid any liability
Means the best they can hope for is attacking smaller less well prepared outfits / individuals at scale - a situation where you create a lot of enemies and spend a lot of energy getting back very little. The money is spent, etc.
the alternative is
Not giving out the money or doing the deals in the first place, unfortunately.
But yeah sick news for folks who fancy a cushy top-guv quango commissioner style role.
Howard
Not sure. You can imagine a situation where suppliers will be less likely to go for government contracts if it turns out the next government will just come after you if it smells something funny.
i.e. a government attacking its citizens and businesses has a cost all of its own.