Duke’s final charity wound up after it ‘breached law’
Prince Andrew’s trust broke industry rules when it paid £350,000 to his former private secretary
THE DUKE OF YORK’S last remaining charity venture is to be wound up after it was found to have “breached the law” by paying £350,000 to his former private secretary.
The Charity Commission ruled that the Prince Andrew Charitable Trust broke industry rules by paying Amanda Thirsk, a former trustee, more than £350,000 in directors’ fees. She received the money for a five-year period working on three subsidiary organisations of the Duke’s charitable body, including his flagship Pitch@palace.
Helen Earner, the commission director of operations, said the £355,297 payment “breached the law”, adding: “By insufficiently managing the resulting conflict of interest from this payment the trustees did not demonstrate the behaviour expected of them.”
The Duke’s household has since paid it back to the trust – which supported his work in the areas of education, entrepreneurship, science, technology and engineering. Last night Pact said any assets would be distributed to worthy UK charitable causes.
Ms Thirsk resigned as a trustee in January, when she stepped down as the Duke’s private secretary after more than 15 years working for him.
The commission’s announcement came as a war of words raged between Prince Andrew’s legal team and US prosecutors over his availability to answer questions about Jeffrey Epstein.
Sources close to the Duke told The Daily Telegraph yesterday the New York lawyer leading the investigation into the late billionaire paedophile’s sex trafficking ring had made it “virtually impossible” for him to cooperate.
Hitting back at claims the Queen’s son “repeatedly declined” the FBI’S requests for an interview, an insider said: “The Duke would have cooperated fully” had Geoffrey Berman not chosen “to make an example of him”. It came after Mr Berman, the US attorney for the southern district of New York, issued a statement on Monday accusing the Duke of “falsely portraying himself to the public as eager and willing to cooperate,” in response to suggestions he had offered to assist the investigation three times this year.
On Monday, the Duke complained through his lawyers that it was “entirely misleading” for Mr Berman to have claimed on Jan 27 that he had offered “zero cooperation”. Mr Berman doubled down on March 9, accusing him of “completely shutting the door” on the investigation.
It came after the US Department of Justice filed a “mutual legal assistance” request to the Home Office, formally seeking help to question him.
The royal insider added: “What we saw yesterday was a trebling down by Berman on this consistent modus operandi of throwing away the rule book and commenting on what are supposed to be completely confidential discussions surrounding the cooperation of a witness. The DOJ have said the Duke is not a target of their investigation.
“There is no way Berman’s latest statement was designed to encourage the Duke to cooperate. It was a sarcastic knee-jerk response to a very reasonably and factually accurate statement about the assistance the Duke has offered so far.” Blackfords, the Duke’s lawyers, declined to comment.
Overnight it emerged the Duke may be asked to provide access to his computers and mobile phones as part of the MLA request because he had a “long distance relationship” with Epstein.
A legal source said the diametrically opposed statements from Mr Berman and the Duke’s lawyers were probably due to differences of interpretation.
They added: “It’s possible Andrew’s lawyers wanted him to just give a statement, or that they wanted conditions for an interview such as immunity, and that it not be on oath. But the prosecutors will want to speak to him, and they will want him on oath.”
‘It was a sarcastic knee-jerk response to a very reasonably and factually accurate statement’