Anatomy of a cash riddle
What Andrew’s aide told banker about £750,000 ... before even MORE payments
THE phone call to one of Buckingham Palace’s most senior courtiers concerned a delicate matter.
Banker Stephen Buckland had been instructed to transfer £750,000 into the Duke of York’s Coutts account, and he wanted to check what the money was for.
The money belonged to Turkish millionairess Nebahat Isbilen, a wealthy client of Mr Buckland at Hampden & Co private bank.
As part of his duty to conduct due diligence, Mr Buckland set about asking some questions about the purpose of the ‘very large sum of money’. Before speaking to Andrew’s private secretary Amanda Thirsk at the Palace, he started with a call to Selman Turk – the alleged ‘middleman’ said to have arranged the payment between Mrs Isbilen and the duke.
The Daily Mail has obtained a transcript of their discussion on November 14, 2019, in which Mr Buckland told Mr Turk: ‘We just need to feel comfortable given the very unusual nature of the transaction’, which had been given the reference ‘wedding gift’. Mr Buckland said: ‘What we’re struggling to understand is why it is so large and, also, is it a gift to help with the cost of the wedding or is it a wedding gift to the bride?’
Mr Turk, 35, who once worked for Goldman Sachs, gave the rather unclear answer: ‘No, wedding – so basically wedding – so for the cost of the wedding.’ The London-based businessman said the transfer was ‘a gift’ and allegedly gave Mr Buckland the number for Andrew’s private secretary.
When Mrs Thirsk answered later that day, Mr Buckland asked her what the £750,000 was for, and according to the transcript, she replied: ‘I understand it’s a gift for the wedding, a wedding gift.’ The banker inquired whether it was a gift for the cost of the wedding or a gift to Princess Beatrice and was told: ‘I mean, I’m not sure it makes much difference, does it? I think it’s a gift for the wedding.’
She added: ‘What she and her family decide to do with it is really to do with them, isn’t it?’. The next day, November 15, the money was transferred to the duke’s account.
Fast-forward 16 months to March 2021, and Mrs Isbilen, 77, told the High Court her money had been ‘dishonestly misappropriated’ by Mr Turk, an allegation which he denies.
Her solicitors wrote to the duke asking questions about his dealings with Mr Turk. None of their questions were answered, but ‘within days’ Mrs Isbilen received £750,000 from the duke. For her, it was the first breakthrough in what has become a jaw-dropping legal wrangle.
The Duke of York is not accused of any wrongdoing and he is not a central figure in the High Court case, in which Mrs Isbilen is suing Mr Turk and a number of offshore companies he allegedly controls. But the duke, along with his ex-wife and daughters, has become embroiled in the complex case.
Yesterday Mrs Thirsk told the Mail she could not remember the call from Mr Buckland. She added: ‘As a person of integrity, I would not be involved in anything improper.’ Mrs Thirsk, an exbanker who joined the prince’s staff in 2004, quit following his disastrous Newsnight interview which – co-incidentally – was recorded the same day as the crucial phone calls. She was his loyal ‘gatekeeper’ for seven years but was made to carry the can for encouraging him to talk to the BBC.
THE £750,000 RIDDLE
A series of conflicting explanations have been made for the duke receiving £750,000 from Mrs Isbilen in November 2019. A refugee from Turkey, where her politician husband is in jail, she claims Mr Turk told her Andrew had helped her secure a new Turkish passport.
She claims Mr Turk told her such a service ‘would normally be worth £2million but it would cost less if we made the payment by way of a gift’. The court was told Mr Turk – who disputes Mrs Isbilen’s version of events – had invented the passport story as a ruse and there was no truth to it.
Then came the explanations about Princess Beatrice’s wedding, which was due to take place in seven months’ time in July 2020. In his defence, filed to the court, Mr Turk said Mrs Isbilen had made the gift to Andrew ‘on her own initiative’. He claimed she had ‘met the Duke and Duchess of York a number of times’. The first time was ‘when they travelled to Turkey on an official visit in the late 1980s’, and there were further meetings in 2019, he said, at Mr Turk’s flat and at St James’s Palace.
A further meeting took place in January 2020, Mr Turk claimed, because she wanted to discuss her husband’s case with the duke and duchess. Mr Turk claimed Mrs Isbilen had been ‘invited to Princess Beatrice’s wedding reception’. He denied telling her to make the gift to Andrew and that he had told her it was for a passport. He denied the duke ‘could or would have used his connections’ to assist with Mrs Isbilen’s passport.
PITCH@PALACE
Whatever the reason for the £750,000, it went into the duke’s account nine days after Mr Turk scored success at an event run by the duke at St James’ Palace.
The duke’s Pitch@Palace initiative is his version of the BBC’s Dragons’ Den in which budding
entrepreneurs make rapid-fire pitches to a room full of business high-flyers. The winner of the night’s People’s Choice Award was digital banking company Heyman AI, run by 35-year-old Turkish financier Mr Turk. In an affidavit submitted to the High Court, Jonathan Tickner, Mrs Isbilen’s solicitor, wrote: ‘Mrs Isbilen suspects that the payment was made for some purpose connected with the banking business.’ The Mail asked the duke yesterday if it was a coincidence that the £750,000 payment was made nine days after Mr Turk’s victory at Pitch@Palace. He did not answer. However it has been pointed out that the duke does not cast a vote in the People’s Choice Award.
‘MONEY LAUNDERING’
A series of payments to the Yorks were made from a company named Alphabet. Mrs Isbilen’s solicitor told the High Court in his affidavit there was ‘strong evidence’ the firm was a ‘fraudulent and covert front used by Mr Turk...to make payments to persons associated with him. Those persons include HRH Prince Andrew [and] Sarah, Duchess of York’. Mr Tickner said the Alphabet transactions were consistent with a pattern of ‘apparent money laundering activity by Mr Turk’. He said payments made by Alphabet appeared to have been made ‘on a fraudulent basis’.
A FURTHER £350,000
As well as the £750,000 payment – which he repaid – the Duke of York is said to have received a further £350,000. The affidavit states: ‘The Alphabet disclosure shows that further transfers of up to £350,000, in regular instalments and in many instances under the reference TK WEDDING or TK WED, were made to Prince Andrew.’ No further details were given but it is understood Mrs Isbilen has not had any further money repaid apart from the £750,000.
£225,000 TO FERGIE
Andrew’s ex-wife received ‘at least’ £225,000 from the Alphabet account, the affidavit states.
Mr Tickner wrote: ‘At least £225,000 was transferred to an account in the name of DUCHESS OF YORK out of the Alphabet account, again in regular instalments’. The duchess has acted as a brand ambassador for a company named Pegasus Group Holdings, and some of the references on the payments are ‘PEG001’. One of the instalments, in November 2019, showed that $25,000 was transferred to Mr Turk from a Las Vegas company named Pegasus Group Holdings, under the reference DUCHESS FEE POP SERVICE.’ A spokesman for the duchess declined to comment. But it is understood that she says it was money she was owed by Pegasus for her work.
PRINCESS EUGENIE
The affidavit states: ‘A payment of £10,000 was made out of the Alphabet account to EUGENIE OF YORK on 9 October 2019, under the payment reference TK008.’ The next day, a further payment was made. ‘The bank records for Mr Turk’s account show that, on 10 October 2019, Mr Turk made a payment of £15,066.05 to EUGENIE YORK under the payment reference BIRTHDAY GIFT.
The solicitor noted that the payment was made some five months before Princess Eugenie’s birthday on March 23. He added: ‘But Sarah, Duchess of York’s birthday is 15 October. In any event I am not aware of any reason for Mr Turk to have made such a substantial gift.’
Mr Turk disputes Mrs Isbilen’s allegations and ‘disagrees with her portrayal of the facts’. He states that ‘much of what has happened is the result of Mrs Isbilen’s status as a politically-exposed person and the consequential difficulty in dealing with her assets’.
In one court ruling, he was described as ‘very cooperative’, and told the judge he ‘had nothing to hide’. The case continues.
Yesterday Andrew’s spokesman said: ‘We are unable to comment on an ongoing legal case.’
A spokesman for the Duchess of York said: ‘The Duchess was completely unaware of the allegations that have since emerged against Mr Turk. She is naturally concerned by what has been alleged against him.’