Up to five people – possibly including a politician – could face prosecution in the betting scandal over the date of the general election, Sky News can reveal.
A source has told Sky News: “The Gambling Commission is looking to prosecute at least three suspects, but possibly up to five. This includes a politician and a close protection guard.”
It is understood that the commission is not yet at the point of making an announcement and a spokesperson said the commission would not comment on an ongoing investigation.
“We clearly appreciate the level of public interest there is in this ongoing investigation,” a commission spokesperson told Sky News.
“But to protect the integrity of the investigation and to ensure a fair and just outcome, we are unable to comment further at this time, including the name of any person who may be under suspicion, or the total number of suspects.
The investigation is into whether people placed bets on a 4 July election as a result of inside knowledge in the days leading up to the then prime minister Rishi Sunak’s shock announcement of an early poll on 22 May.
Mr Williams had placed a £100 bet on a July election at Ladbrokes in his constituency just days before Mr Sunak’s announcement. Based on odds at the time, he would have won £500.
Advertisement
“I put a flutter on the general election some weeks ago,” he said in a post on X on 13 June. “This has resulted in some routine inquiries and I confirm I will fully co-operate with these.”
Next, just a week before polling day, Sky News revealed that Mr Sunak’s Downing Street chief of staff Liam Booth-Smith was being questioned by the commission, the statutory body that regulates betting in the UK, as a witness, not a suspect.
Image: Craig Williams admitted to betting on the election date. Pic: PA
Both Mr Booth-Smith and Sir Oliver were questioned as witnesses.
In late August, the Metropolitan Police announced that their detectives had concluded their role in the ongoing criminal investigation, though the Gambling Commission’s investigation continued.
The commission’s investigation is into whether bets placed were in breach of Section 42 of the Gambling Act 2005 (Cheating). The Met had been looking into whether other offences, most likely Misconduct in Public Office, could apply.
The Met said that based on the assessment of the evidence and the advice from the Crown Prosecution Service, it was determined that the high bar for Misconduct in Public Office to be proven was not met.
Making the announcement, Detective Superintendent Katherine Goodwin said: “These allegations caused a significant dent in public confidence during the election campaign and it was right that they were investigated to explore all possible offences.
“While our involvement in the criminal investigation now ceases, it’s important that is not misinterpreted as an all clear for those whose cases were looked at.
“There are still Gambling Act offences to consider and it is appropriate that they are taken forward by investigators from the Gambling Commission who have particular expertise in this field.
“Seven police officers who are alleged to have placed bets are still among those being investigated by the Gambling Commission. They also remain under investigation by the Met’s Directorate of Professional Standards.”
On the day of the Met’s announcement, 23 August, Andrew Rhodes, chief executive of the Gambling Commission, said: “We have remained focused on our criminal investigation into confidential information being used to gain an unfair advantage when betting on the date of the general election.
“Our investigation continues to progress and we have interviewed several suspects under caution. We are continuing to interview a number of witnesses, who are co-operating with this criminal investigation, as well as gathering further documentary and electronic evidence.”
On Monday, 17 June an officer attached to the Royalty and Specialist Protection Command, was arrested on suspicion of Misconduct in Public Office and later bailed.
No further action is being taken against him in relation to that specific offence.
The former Labour MP, who now represents Coventry South as an independent, admitted she had launched the membership portal without her co-leader’s sign-off, but claimed she did so because she had been “sidelined” by a “sexist boys club”.
Her actions led to Mr Corbyn issuing his own statement, in which he urged members of the party – which has been given the interim name of Your Party – to ignore an “unauthorised” email urging them to become paid members and that legal advice was being taken.
In a fresh statement issued on Sunday evening, Ms Sultana acknowledged her supporters had been left feeling “demoralised” by the saga.
“For the sake of the party, and as an act of good faith, I will not be pursuing legal proceedings despite the baseless and unsubstantiated allegations against me,” she said.
“I know many people are feeling demoralised – I share that feeling. We find ourselves in a regrettable situation, but my motivation has always been to ensure the collective strength of our movement, put members first and build the genuinely democratic conference and socialist party we so urgently need.”
She added: “I am determined to reconcile and move forward. I am engaged in ongoing discussions with Jeremy, for whom, like all socialists of my generation, I have nothing but respect.”
X
This content is provided by X, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable X cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to X cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow X cookies for this session only.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:45
What is happening at Your Party?
Despite her current attempts to repair the row, Your Party reported itself to the Information Commissioner’s Office last week after the “false membership” system was “unilaterally launched” by Ms Sultana – which it said was its duty under the law.
Questions remain over the handling of the data, which, as outlined in Your Party’s privacy notice, is owned by the Peace and Justice Project, spearheaded by the former Labour leader and independent activist Pamela Fitzpatrick, who are listed as the directors on Companies House.
The Coventry MP said in a statement after the row broke out that “at no point was members’ data misused or put at risk” and that the portal was “properly launched in accordance with the party’s roadmap”.
The ICO watchdog, which upholds information rights in the public interest, can issue fines up to £17.5m or 4% of global turnover, or pass fraud and negligence cases to police.
A spokesperson for the ICO told Sky News on Friday: “We can confirm we have received a report and are assessing the information provided.”
Sir Ed Davey has branded Elon Musk a criminal and called for him to be prosecuted for “allowing online harm to children” on his social media platform X.
The Lib Dem leader told Sky News’ Sunday Morning with Trevor Phillips the billionaire owner of X, formerly Twitter, is “inciting violence” and his social media platform is actively failing to protect children.
Sir Ed, speaking from the Lib Dem conference in Bournemouth, said Mr Musk could be prosecuted under the Online Safety Act, under which social media companies have a legal duty to protect children from harmful content and their directors are liable for criminal prosecution for breaching it.
Image: Elon Musk. Pic: Reuters
Asked if he is calling Mr Musk a criminal, Sir Ed did not miss a beat as he said: “Yes.
“Not just because of the awful things he’s done in inciting violence, and, for example, he says a civil war in our country is inevitable, that our democratically elected government should be overthrown.
“They were bad enough. But on his platform, they’re examples of adverse, pushing people on self-harm, on grooming, even selling videos showing paedophile acts, of child sex abuse acts and I think he should be held to account for them, him personally and his business.
“Ofcom now has the powers under the Online Safety Act.”
More on Elon Musk
Related Topics:
He said if Mr Musk comes to the UK, he should be arrested.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:38
Sir Ed Davey enters conference with marching band
Mr Musk was accused of inciting violence during a march organised by Tommy Robinson in London last week.
He told the protest via video link: “This is a message to the reasonable centre, the people who ordinarily wouldn’t get involved in politics, who just want to live their lives. They don’t want that, they’re quiet, they just go about their business.
“My message is to them: if this continues, that violence is going to come to you, you will have no choice. You’re in a fundamental situation here.
“Whether you choose violence or not, violence is coming to you. You either fight back or you die, that’s the truth, I think.”
Image: Sir Ed Davey said Elon Musk should be arrested
Sir Ed said it is “shocking” that Mr Musk removed some of X’s child safety teams when he took over Twitter in 2022 and accused him of just being “interested in his bank account”.
“I’m interested in the safety of our children, and it is quite wrong that his business puts on these adverts,” said the Lib Dem leader.
“It’s disgusting and I hope everybody will agree with me and the Liberal Democrats that we should take really strong action against him.”
After Mr Musk acquired Twitter, many of its child safety staff were laid off or resigned, and the platform’s trust and safety council was disbanded.
Child protection experts have accused Mr Musk of leading a “race to the bottom on safety”.
Image: Elon Musk with Donald Trump in the Oval Office. Pic: AP
Ofcom, the UK’s independent media regulator, which has the power to prosecute directors of social media platforms under the Online Safety Act, has launched an investigation into X’s handling of child sexual abuse content.
This is not the first time Sir Ed has hit out at the world’s richest man, as he called for the US ambassador to be summoned in February “to ask why an incoming US official is suggesting the UK government should be overthrown”.