The ICAEW Report is dated 1st March 1994 and is 27 pages long. Its contents are as follows:


 Document                                                                                       No. Of Pages

Cover Page                                                                                           1
Letter from the Committee to Team Members                                       1
Directors’ Review (dated 23 February 1994)                                      4
Report by the Director of Professional Conduct Dept.                          5
A list of  the parties involved                                                                2
Press extracts                                                                                         2
Two letters from Coopers & Lybrand                                                    3
One letter from Grant Thornton                                                              1
Correspondence relating to shell companies                                         7
 (including invoices received/issued by Jackson & Co.)
Letter from Lloyds Bank to Roger Humphrey                                         1
  Total Pages                                                                                          27

The copy of the report in our possession  is incomplete. For example, the report contains a letter (dated 20 July 1993) from the Jersey branch of Coopers & Lybrand, but only the first page is included.


The ICAEW  became a willing party to the investigation even though the Secretary of the ICAEW Investigation Committee stated that: So why did the ICAEW, the DTI, the SFO, the Prime Minister and others continue to argue that allegations of ‘money laundering’ were being investigated or even could be investigated by the ICAEW?

The ICAEW’s own admission does not lend any credence to its claims that it has investigated the matter. By its admission, its disciplinary procedures were not competent to even begin an investigation.

Matters relating to AGIP had been reported in the newspapers since 1985. The High Court case was concluded in 1990/91. We had been pressing various regulators to act since early 1991. Given the High Court revelations, one might have expected the ICAEW to move with some urgency, but its Report shows little concern. The Secretary of the Investigations Committee wrote:

 “I should like nothing better than to close the file on AGIP, not least because ...... I have contributed to delays by putting this matter aside in favour of more pressing and less intractable problems” (Source: The ICAEW Report, page 2)

Our conclusion is that the ICAEW investigation is totally inadequate. Perhaps, the ICAEW should stand for the INSTITUTE OF COVER-UP, ARROGANCE, EVASION AND WHITEWASH.

The ICAEW Report does not meet the minimal standards expected for an investigation. Yet it had enabled the DTI, the Prime Minister and others to parry all questions. What were they all covering up?