Tangled webs

The following is an extract from Ms Jowell's statement. The full version is here.

"On ... 20th September 2000, my husband wanted to make an investment, and took out a loan using our London home as security. I signed the relevant papers. My husband has a number of investments and I knew there would be no difficulty in repaying the loan.
I knew nothing more about the nature of the investment.
I was not aware until recently that the loan had been repaid shortly after it was taken out, so our London home was no longer needed as security.
I first became aware in August 2004 that my husband had received in September 2000 a sum of money which he thought he had reasonable grounds to believe was a gift. By the time I became aware of it, he had already agreed with the Inland Revenue that it should be classified as earnings on which tax was paid. I did not therefore consider it necessary to make any reference about any
of this to my permanent secretary.
However, I fully accept that my husband should have informed me and, if he had, I would of course have reported it to my permanent secretary."

Two points arise from this. First, this seems to me an admission that Ms Jowell was in breach of the Code. Even although she may not have been aware of it, her husband had received what he thought was a gift; this gift was not declared to her permanent secretary, although it should have been; it may not have been the direct fault of Ms Jowell but she was responsible for notifying any such gifts and she failed to do so in this case.

Secondly, what strange marriages some people have. Mr Mills receives what he thinks is a gift of £400,000 and doesn't tell his wife?