4 ms·
It is still a conflict of interest. In most non-corrupt countries, the politician would have to disclose and recuse themselves of any decision impacting the int
by bparsons 3y ago
It is still a conflict of interest. In most non-corrupt countries, the politician would have to disclose and recuse themselves of any decision impacting the interested party.
- krona 3y ago> It is still a conflict of interest. His wife isn't in government, and AFAIK Sunak owns no part of Infosys.
- tharax 3y agoIn fact, according to her tax disclosures she doesn’t even expect to stay in the UK…
- SenAnder 3y ago[dead]
- hristov 3y agoIf his wife owns part of Infosys, he essentially owns it too. Married couples tend to share their assets. Furthermore, his wife is a citizen of India, infosys is domiciled in india and indian courts tend to split marital assets in the middle in the case of a divorce.
- toyg 3y agoMarried couples, in the UK, don't "tend to share assets" - by law, all assets belong to the marriage, end of story. Private agreements to the contrary can be (and often are) disregarded by the courts. What she makes is as his as hers.
- bparsons 3y agoThis isn't how conflicts work. In any sort of high profile role --let alone high office-- the interests of your spouse and family are treated as your own. For the purposes of public office or even a CEO at a publicly traded company, the appearance of a conflict is no difference than a material conflict. It is pretty clear that Sunak is toast and that the people around him simply don't care anymore.