I'll remind you of the five factors I considered when I decided to reject these claims. First of all, one agent at the very start and subsequently other agents expressed a lack of awareness, to say the least, of the expense itself.
Furthermore, there was insufficient documentation to justify the expense. There were also submissions to the effect that the party had made arrangements on behalf of candidates. And yet the invoices were sent to the party, and not to the candidates. I remind you the criteria I mentioned earlier. One of the problems was the manner in which invoices were paid, that is to say by means of transfers of funds, which always remained under the party's control. The funds were never really under the control of the agents or candidates.
Lastly, there was one important point: when you take a close look at the transactions, the candidates taking part in a group purchase—which is possible—were attributed entirely different amounts. It is therefore impossible to establish that there was a commercial value within the meaning of the act, in view of the difference in the amounts that were allocated to the candidates taking part in the same purchases.