A Railtrack manager signed an anti-sleaze declarat

A Railtrack manager signed an anti-sleaze declaration as a ‘good boy’ weeks after pocketing a fortune in backhanders, a jury heard today (Monday).

Martin Weaver signed the paper for bosses in June 1998 after accepting ‘bungs’ and hospitality from his alleged paymaster Gary Hughes, whose company Ontrack Services were awarded a series of contracts by the network operator.

Prosecutor Jon Whitfield told London’s Southwark Crown Court that Railtrack ran strict rules designed to avoid conflicts of interest.

‘The rules state that great care must be taken to insure there was no impropriety, nor any possibility of impropriety,’ said the barrister.

He said the guidelines covered gifts and entertainment that could be construed as showing favour.

‘On June 2, 1998, Weaver declared, despite all the money and hospitality, that he had been a good boy and his abidement of the rules,’ said Mr Whitfield.

He said it was another ‘lie’ in a web of corruption.

However, counsel submits that all the money paid to Weaver came from OTS – rather than being personal loans from Hughes – despite attempts to launder the cash through different bank accounts.

The court heard that OTS won three ‘big’ and ‘lucrative’ contracts for work on the Brent Sidings, at Stonebridge Park, northwest London, and a similar project on sidings at Wolverton, outside Milton Keynes, as well as a supervisory role on a succession of improvements known as ‘RT1B.

‘

In addition, when OTS was proposed but failed to win sub-contracting work, Weaver was alleged to have demanded why.

‘It should be absolutely no business of his whatsoever,’ said Mr Whitfield.

‘He was in effect poking his nose in.

‘

‘The Crown say Weaver continually recommended OTS over other companies.

The argument may be that they were good and he was pushing them – the question is whether it went beyond that into what was improper and shows corruption.

‘

And he alleged that Weaver threatened to withdraw work from companies winning contracts unless they employed OTS.

‘Weaver had gone well beyond trying to get a job well done.

‘

The jury heard that when interviewed both men claimed money passed over as a loan.

They admitted the situation was ‘sensitive’ and likely to be the subject of ‘gossip’ in the rail industry.

But the prosecutor said no one would have known unless either defendant passed on the information to outsiders.

Mr Whitfield told the court: ‘They are not even sure how much they have loaned each other and how much has been paid back.

‘That is really indicative of them being in each others’ pockets.

That is what it is really all about – the giver and receiver of corrupt payments.

‘

He added: ‘The defence case is these were two old friends, one in financial trouble was loaned money by the other and naively does not declare it.

‘It was done in cash because they believed it was the right thing to do at the time – and all this has been misinterpreted.

‘

The trial continues.

ends