THE PSNI have asked their counterparts in London to investigate a complaint against First Minister Peter Robinson.
Last month Belfast businessman Peter Curistan complained to police about remarks the DUP leader made at Westminster in 2006, when Mr Robinson used parliamentary privilege to claim Mr Curistan was linked to "IRA dirty money".
The Sheridan Group chairman, who played a central role in the development of Belfast's Odyssey complex, maintains his reputation has been ruined by the comments and his legal team believes there is a case to answer in respect of "misfeasance in public office", which they believe is not covered by parliamentary privilege.
Misfeasance in public office is where an individual in public office knowingly acts unlawfully.
Mr Curistan's solicitor, Joe McVeigh of KRW Law, claims the DUP leader's remarks have had "enormous consequences" for his client's business.
"It may be helpful to have outside officers look at the case, however, most of the consequences of the remarks occurred in Northern Ireland," Mr McVeigh said.
"We will be asking the PSNI why they have assessed this as being a matter for the Met".
When news of Mr Curistan's complaint to police first emerged last month, a statement attributed to Mr Robinson and issued through the DUP press office said: "The police may have to waste their time with this but I do not".
The PSNI has written to the Metropolitan Police commissioner asking the force to take over the investigation of the complaint against the first minister because the alleged offences took place in London.
In October, Mr Curistan gave an interview to The Irish News in which he accused the first minister of "double-standards".
Under similar rules of privilege which prevented Mr Curistan from seeking to sue the DUP leader, loyalist blogger Jamie Bryson claimed Mr Robinson was one of five people due to share in a £7.5m payment from US investment fund Cerberus after it sealed the purchase of Nama's northern loan portfolio.
The DUP leader denied the allegation, saying Bryson's claims lacked credibility and had "no evidential basis".
