Iraq inquiry detectives blew whistle over ‘fraud’
Senior police on Ihat team repeatedly warned bosses over payments linked to false claims of abuse
SENIOR police officers repeatedly warned bosses of the risk of false abuse claims made against Iraq war veterans – but were ignored for years, The Daily Telegraph can disclose.
The former detectives on the Iraq Historic Allegations Team (Ihat) also flagged up suspected fraudulent payments made to Iraqis working for a now discredited British lawyer, four years before the £60 million inquiry was eventually shut down.
The disclosures will raise further doubts about ongoing investigations into British troops, including a decorated major and two colleagues facing an eighth inquiry over the death of an Iraqi who drowned in 2003.
The Daily Telegraph tracked down three former detectives who – speaking for the first time – were scathing of systemic failings in the inquiry. Many of their claims are backed up by memos and other documents. One ex-detective, who complained about lengthy investigations and payments to witnesses and lawyers, claims to have been told by a senior MOD official: “Don’t worry about it. Think about the money [you are getting].”
Another high-ranking detective said: “We told the Ihat management of our concerns about all these payments to supposed witnesses and victims as long ago as 2013. They ... continued to pay the agents hundreds of thousands of pounds until this whole thing finally blew up. We couldn’t understand how there were thousands of cases. It didn’t make any sense.”
Ihat was set up in 2010 to investigate allegations of abuse – including torture and murder – of Iraqis by British troops following the 2003 conflict. Dozens of retired police detectives were hired by Ihat, which was funded by the MOD, to investigate thousands of complaints. The vast majority were brought by Phil Shiner, then the boss of Public Interest Lawyers (PIL) and a human rights lawyer since struck off for dishonesty, while Ihat was finally shut down last year amid growing concerns that many of the allegations were false.
The ex-police officers recommended that the MOD stop paying Shiner and Mazin Younis and Abu Jamal, his Iraqi fixers, and instead use independent investigators. The officers warned that the evidence being gathered, including witness statements, risked being tainted because of the payments and an alleged lack of oversight of them.
The documents seen by The Telegraph show tens of thousands of pounds was paid to Mr Younis, an Iraqi businessman based in Manchester. In an official memo, one ex-detective wrote: “I was uncomfortable with using PIL for these important evidence-gathering mechanisms. My strong belief was that PIL agents collecting evidence for Ihat was a clear conflict of interest.” Mr Younis has denied any wrongdoing. He said: “These allegations are very vague. Why are they complaining now? Did they tell you I worked with Ihat for two years and there were no complaints? Ihat is closed now so it cannot answer. If they want to make these complaints why didn’t they complain to me?”
THE senior detectives working for the Iraq Historic Allegations Team (Ihat) were growing increasingly perturbed.
The inquiry had been set up in 2010 by the Ministry of Defence to investigate allegations of abuse – including murder and torture – made by Iraqis and levelled at British troops in the aftermath of the 2003 invasion.
But the investigations were not straight forward. The reported crimes had taken place 3,500 miles away and a decade ago, mainly in and around Basra in southern Iraq.
The Ihat team needed not only to chase down veterans now back in the UK but also to questions alleged victims and witnesses, still in Basra, a city now too dangerous to visit.
To facilitate the inquiries, Ihat’s bosses agreed payments with Phil Shiner and his law firm Public Interest Lawyers (PIL), which represented most of the alleged victims. Witnesses were flown to Istanbul from Basra to be interviewed by Ihat investigators, mostly former police officers.
“Working for the MOD was like walking in treacle,” said one ex-detective, speaking out for the first time.
“Ihat is too heavily dependent on PIL and outside influences,” wrote another investigator, a former senior detective, in a “log book” dated July 2012.
The ex-police officer, insists he made his concerns known to senior management but complaints, he said, fell on deaf ears. In an official memo seen by The Daily Telegraph, he wrote: “I was uncomfortable with using PIL for these important evidence gathering mechanisms. My strong belief was that PIL agents collecting evidence for Ihat was a clear conflict of interest. During 2012 on various occasions I voiced my concerns at the process... I also verbally articulated my position at management meetings and other forums both at this time and in the future.”
His fears were shared by at least two other detectives on the team. A colleague called for one Iraqi agent to be investigated for suspected fraud over claims for travel insurance, worth thousands of pounds. What happened to the complaint is not known while the agent, Mazin Younis, an Iraqi now based in Manchester who runs a translation company called OSW Ltd, denies all wrongdoing. He said he was never aware any complaint had been made against him.
The ex-detectives visited Mr Younis in Manchester on July 3 2013 to try to prise from him specific invoices to match the money paid out by Ihat. In September 2014, one detective wrote in a memo: “Having seen invoices from
‘My strong belief was that PIL agents collecting evidence for Ihat was a clear conflict of interest’
OSW Ltd to Ihat I have some concerns about the services provided.”
He went on: “I respectfully ask that consideration be given to undertaking an investigation into the supply of travel insurance by OSW Ltd for witnesses ... If OSW Ltd has been charging Ihat for travel insurance that has not or never been purchased then a criminal offence of fraud by representation may have been committed.”
Whatever the rights and wrongs of Mr Younis’s business arrangements, what is clear from documents seen by The Telegraph is the large amounts paid by Ihat to OSW Ltd for its services.
The invoices show OSW Ltd was paid £83,504.96 for 12 sample trips in 2013 and 2014 to fly witnesses from Basra to Istanbul. On top of the expenses paid to OSW and intended to be distributed to the witnesses and others, Ihat paid for flights and hotels in Istanbul.
The detectives were concerned that whilst these invoices may have been legitimate there was no system in place to ensure proper oversight. The detectives questioned superiors over why complainants were being offered money to testify against British troops, effectively a financial incentive.
Documents show that Mr Younis was paid between £300 and £850 in a “trip arrangement fee” and also billed £60 insurance for each passenger, a further £480 for each trip. Mr Younis also billed Ihat for phone sim cards while in Istanbul charged at $40 each and “pocket money” at $65 per person.
Separate invoices show Ihat was paying Younis a further £60 an hour for help with its investigations.
Of his invoices, the investigator wrote: “There were no receipts for individual items within the invoice and no evidence as to where the money had been spent. The integrity of the payments and system was non-existent.”
Mr Younis told The Daily Telegraph: “We had regular meetings and communications where all matters relating to trip management were fully discussed. Ihat had full knowledge of the Insurance company that was used, insurance cards for individual travellers were provided to Ihat regularly over a period of 2 years.
“The cards clearly displayed policy
number, insurance company name, contact details and website links.”
Ihat continued to pay PIL up until 2016 even at a time when the law firm was under investigation for bringing false claims against British troops.
An MOD spokesman said: “It’s totally wrong for people to exaggerate or make up allegations against our brave troops. This causes unnecessary distress for our soldiers and their families, and anyone responsible for false claims should be ashamed. Credible claims should be and are investigated, but false allegations make it harder for justice to be served.”