If she broke a law, it would be up to the police to lay the charges and for the Crown (i.e. "the people", because the Crown represents the people in a constitutional monarchy) to prosecute the case. I'd think that the legal system in the UK is similar to the one in Canada, because our legal system is patterned after theirs. The Queen, as a person, wouldn't have anything to do with it unless--as the Paul Burrell case--she had information to pass on which would cause the Crown Attorney to drop the case.
But, as I understand it, there's no law against what could be considered "influence peddling" in the UK. So I guess that it's all moot.
Could I try to help with a bit of background information here please?
'Influence Peddling' can be a tricky area. In England and Wales [Scotland has its own legal system, with some differences, although I would imagine that both legal systems are more or less united on this one] it is quite permissable - and indeed quite a common and above-board legitimate business practice - to pay 'introduction and commission' fees. Such transactions though are always the subject of formal contracts and almost always carefully documented by the lawyers and also record what the fee is for. This happens at all levels: a simple example is 'introducer's commission' paid to a person who brings two [or more parties] together in a transaction: for example, Mr Smith is a roving property [real estate] professional. In the course of his professional practice, he becomes aware that 'Super Housebuilders Ltd [INC to you Americans] is seeking sites on which to build new homes for commuters. In the course of his business practice, Mr Smith is also aware that Farmer Giles owns 10 acres that he wishes to sell. Mr Smith therefore puts Farmer Giles in touch with 'Super Housebuilders'. In negotiating this transaction with the parties, Mr Smith also factors in a 'commission payment'. No problem here!
Incidentally, one of the main reasons for making sure everything is above board [and that the transaction is properly evidenced in documentation ] is that a tax liability will ALWAYS arise, and the parties will need to be able to produce the proper paperwork to HM Customs and Revenue [ the UK version of the IRS]
The problem arises when payments are negotiated for rather more nebulous services: the immediate problem we have with Prince Andrew is that he is NOT allowed to use his princely connections for his personal advantage. In his role as Special Trade Envoy he does undertake [or is meant to] a certain amount of 'path-smoothing' [as did his predecessor in the role, the Duke of Kent] but this is for the benefit of UK trade, not the Prince in his own capacity. The Royal family has, incidentally, always done its bit to boost UK trade - in the past, the Queen used to host receptions for [foreign] businesspeople and representatives of UK companies on the Royal Yacht Britannia; there was of course no 'personal financial gain' for the Queen.
Personal benefit and the payment of £ to secure contracts can be a very difficult area: There was a recent bribery scandal arsing from payments of money to secure contracts invovling the [once highly respectable] UK company British Aerospace.
I will just throw in this here: the News of the World is certainly at this very moment the subject of very questionnable conduct - for a start it has just been shut down - but it has always maintained that the 'Fake Sheikh' only operates when he is already aware of wrongdoing being committed - i.e. he does not just set out to trap the 'previously innocent unwary'. If one believes what he has said about his modus operandii, the pattern is that he becomes aware of 'wrongdoing' and then recreates conditions for the scenario to be repeated. If we can take the last 3 'Royal Stings':
Sophie Wessex was caught after a disgrunted member of her staff, alerted the Fake Sheikh to Sophie's use of her Royal Connections to win contracts. The Fake Sheikh therefore replicated the conditions to 'catch Sophie out'.
Princess Michael was allegedly frequently heard bad-mouthing members of the Royal Family in London Society. One person, offended by this habit of the Princess, therefore 'tipped off' the fake Sheikh.
So far as the Sarah, Duchess of York scandal is concerned, both The Times and THe Daily Telegraph published reports to the effect that Sarah had previously pulled a 'cash for access stunt' on a businessman, who then became disenchanted and tipped off the Fake Sheikh. The Daily Telegraph went further in its report, claiming that HM Revenue and Customs was taking a 'close look' at the situation.
In quoting the foregoing, I invite fellow forum members to bear in mind that the person tipping off the 'Fake Sheikh' in each case is not necessarily someone who any of us would regard as honourable by our own standards and there must always remain the doubt that such evidence is accordingly tainted. But, by the same token, it was indeed the case each time that the Royal 'Victim' was 'caught' in the set-up - there was nothing, after all, stopping either PMK, Sophie or indeed Sarah saying ' I am having no part of this, go away'. [and on a personal note, I did find Sarah's 'scooping up of the £40,000 somewhat well-practised!!]. I would also add that after the Times and The Telegraph ran stories suggesting that Sarah had previously participated in a 'cash for access' transaction, law suits alleging libel etc were not launched by representatives of either Sarah, Duchess of York or indeed Andrew. It's pretty murky business either way, I reckon!