.jpg?crop=8:5,smart&quality=75&auto=webp&width=960)
Investors who lost thousands of pounds after the collapse of Polly Peck have welcomed the 10-year sentence handed to Asil Nadir.
The former fugitive, 71, was jailed for the theft of nearly £29 million from his Polly Peck International empire more than 20 years ago.
Their reaction came as a former Tory party treasurer called for the Conservatives to return money Nadir donated to the party.
PPI was a major UK conglomerate until 1990 when it collapsed after a Serious Fraud Office investigation, causing thousands of pensioners and small investors to lose their money.
Among those is Stephen Jones, a London blogger who describes himself as a “Tory supporter”, who wrote on Twitter: “Having lost a six-figure sum with Polly Peck & sister companies in early 1990s I’m kinda happy with (the) 10 year prison sentence.”
Writer Nick Chrimes, 61, from Essex lost £15,000 when Polly Peck collapsed. But more than 20 years on he is philosophical. He said: “I’m in favour of Michael Mates’s view. Don’t let the buggers get you down.”
Former MP Mr Mates famously gave Nadir a watch inscribed with those words as he faced trial. Mr Chrimes described Nadir as a “likeable rogue who you shouldn’t have lent any money to”.
He added: “He is certainly not all bad. He’s no one’s fool. I don’t see why else he would land himself voluntarily with a prison sentence when in his seventies.”
Meanwhile, Lord McAlpine, who was Tory treasurer when the party received £440,000 from Nadir’s business empire between 1985 and 1990, called on David Cameron to hand back the “tainted” money.
He said the Prime Minister was under a “moral duty” to return the political gift. He said: “It is tainted money and it shames the Conservatives if they hang on to it. They have a moral duty to give it back.”
Touche Ross, the Polly Peck administrator, has written a letter to Tory HQ claiming at least £365,000 can be identified as money stolen by Nadir.
Lord McAlpine added: “Frankly, the Tories should have given the money back in 1993. But today the case is even clearer. There is a moral imperative for the money to be returned.”
