So what?

Reading through some old articles I found this Telegraph article about Labour's Baroness Uddin. The bits that struck me were first that:

'New evidence which came to light during the formal parliamentary sleaze inquiry into Labour’s Baroness Uddin is being passed to the Metropolitan Police, who may now consider reviving the criminal case, which collapsed amid recrimination earlier this year.

Angus Robertson, the Scottish Nationalist MP whose complaint to police sparked the original criminal inquiry, confirmed that he would write to the Met asking police to reopen the case in the light of this new evidence.

...

'She was found to have “misled” the subcommittee after suggesting that she regularly stayed overnight at the Kent flat – which she described as a “bolt hole”.
However, police obtained statements from 12 neighbours who all said that she had never been seen there and that they referred to the property as the “empty flat”.
Water bills showed close to zero usage, leading the water company to replace Lady Uddin’s meter, assuming it was broken because levels were so low.
At one point, some shirts blew off a washing line on to the balcony of the flat, and were left to gather mould because no one removed them.
Neighbours said that they could see that there was no furniture in the flat until press reports about her case, and no signs of occupancy other than a single unshaded light bulb, which was set on a timer switch.
Lady Uddin had asked the letting company to forward all correspondence to her London home.
The subcommittee report said: “We find that Lady Uddin deliberately misled us as to the frequency of her stays in Maidstone'

And second that

'Lady Uddin has said that she does not have the money to repay the £125,000 she illegitimately claimed.'

I trust that the CPS will take on board the new evidence regarding Baroness Uddin's non-use of her Maidstone flat and prosecute her accordingly.

I further trust that in reply to the Baroness's squeals that she doesn't have the money, the authorities say "So What?" and ask her to pay in large instalments or even use an 'attachment of earnings order'. If proven, why should Baroness Uddin get away with her illegal claims?