I was going to link to Daniel Finkelstein's comment about the Lib Dems:

We now know that at the last election the Lib Dem campaign to clean up politics was led by an alcoholic and financed by a fraudster.

But, as Oliver Kamm points out:

Were he less fastidious in observing the conventions of polite debate, Daniel might have written that at the last election the Lib Dems were led by a lying alcoholic.

...A debilitating illness, such as Roosevelt's incapacity through polio (which was successfully hidden from the public), need not impair a politician's effectiveness. But Kennedy's alcoholism incontestably did affect how he spoke and behaved in public. The Lib Dems perpetrated a lie, which eventually unravelled only because journalists found documentary evidence of the truth and not because the party discharged what it ought to have regarded as a civic obligation.

Now comes the reality check for Sir Ming. Even if the loan was not illegal (and as The Times reports, it might well be) it is certainly obvious that if the Lib Dems hang on to it, any claim they might make to being clean is shot through at first instance.

As it is, we know the Lib Dems lie if it suits their self-interest. If they refuse to pay back the money they have received from Michael Brown, we know that they are, in any real sense, financially corrupt, too.