Two wrongs and a right

Avatar ByBig Pink

Two wrongs and a right

The John James blog has of late thrown up many hooks to hang our theories on and provided much food for thought on the Rangers issue.

His casual invective against individuals, particularly Dave King, and often members of the Bench is not particularly SFM-like in its approach, but despite the industrial nature of much of the discourse, the value of his work cannot be denied.

On the subject of revisiting LNS, I find myself in agreement with his conclusions. His argument about Celtic’s attitude to Resolution 12 is to my mind compelling insofar as it serves as a barometer for Celtic’s disposition towards rocking the SPL/SFA boat. Like him, I cannot see any real evidence, (despite the recent statement by the club) that they are disposed to move in the direction of a revisited LNS (although it should be noted that besides Celtic there are another 40 clubs who may have an opinion on this).

His conclusions though should not be confused with his opinion on the rights and wrongs of LNS. Like most of us, he appears to be of the opinion that LNS was seriously flawed on multiple counts.

I saw Bill McMurdo’s remarks too in reference to the same topic. He alleges that the whole SFA house of cards would come down if information he has at his fingertips, information that off-book payments in Scottish football was much more widespread that the RFC EBTs, was made public.

UnderTableIf what he says is true, and he has evidence, he should be expanding on the innuendo.

If he chooses not to, then he is as complicit as those he accuses.

In any event, to say that no action should be taken because others have done it is not the same as saying that no action WILL be taken.

If he means the former, then he is wrong. By the logic of that argument it follows that burglars for example should not be prosecuted because other people burgle houses but didn’t get caught.

I suspect he knows himself that by any objective standard, this view is in error, because when he is called out on it, he reverts to ad hominem attacks on those who called him on it. No defence, just withering, dismissive sarcasm – in the manner of former pundit Jim Traynor when he refers to those who speak of sporting integrity.

If he means the latter, then he should do what he can do prevent it and make his information public. I believe he knows that the £3 note fraternity runs through Scottish football like lettering on a stick of seaside rock, but I suspect he doesn’t actually have evidence.

If there is evidence, then McMurdo is in a unique position to get it out in the open and make life difficult for those he alleges are corrupt.

Then we should go back in time as far as possible to investigate those who participated in “black money” schemes, whether they are EBTs, other forms of tax dodge, or just money in a brown paper bag.

I do not believe that any of us participating in the Scottish Football Monitor would fear exposure of any of our clubs. I think we all know that this is far more important than club loyalties.

If McMurdo’s information is correct, then we also have the opportunity to show that the clamour for revisiting LNS is not an anti-Rangers with-hunt. Instead of reconvening LNS, let’s have Bill’s info, and constitute a wider enquiry. If the info was made public, and it will now be difficult for him to put his genie back into the bottle, could the SFA and the clubs resist the pressure for such an enquiry?

handsMaybe McMurdo’s intervention/revelation may yet be seen as a seminal moment in the campaign to rid ourselves of corruption and incompetence in football.

Our position has always been clear. Corruption is counter to sporting integrity. Therefore it must be rooted out.

John James and Merlin are probably correct in that the clubs will seek to thwart any move for a new enquiry; and there could easily have been a deal done with King last week.

However there was also a deal done with Charles Green about the new club being parachuted into the SPL. How did that one turn out?

About the author

Avatar

Big Pink administrator

Big Pink is John Cole; a former schoolteacher based in the West of Scotland, He is also a print and broadcast journalist who is engaged in the running of SFM . Former gigs include Newstalk 106, the Celtic View, and Channel67. A Celtic fan, he is also the voice of our podcast initiative.

1,703 Comments so far

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on11:14 pm - Jan 5, 2016


jimbo 5th January 2016 at 10:53 pm
=========================

I think you may have picked me up wrong.

I absolutely believed that Rangers could be placed into administration, they did it to themselves. My point was that other people told me they wouldn’t be, along with the rest of the things that couldn’t happen.

They did it because HMRC threatened them. If I remember correctly Whyte said it would happen within about a week, then HMRC petitioned the CoS and Whyte was forced to do it immediately.

Once they were in administration I was 100% confident they would be liquidated, so long as HMRC had 25% of the debt or more. There was no way it was going any other way, and I have described why on enough occasions. They will do it to any football club they can, particularly one which steals from them.

One more thing, it was HMRC who put BDO in to do the liquidation, if people think that Police Scotland have come up with all of this on their own then they have more faith in their ability to investigate complex fraud cases than I do.

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on11:18 pm - Jan 5, 2016


martin c 5th January 2016 at 11:14 pm
==========================

I’m not a legal bod however they are innocent, it is up to the Crown to prove their guilt.

That is the one issue, convincing a jury, beyond all reasonable doubt. However the Judge can help with that.

View Comment

Avatar

martin cPosted on11:33 pm - Jan 5, 2016


what i am driving at is the separation of the  crime and those who have committed the crime? e.g. my car is stolen,  a person stands trial for the theft and found innocent, my car remains stolen. 
Could we say now that a crime had been committed but those charged are innocent until proven guilty?
or are the two mutually inclusive a guilty verdict mean a fraud had taken place?

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on11:57 pm - Jan 5, 2016


ThomTheThim 5th January 2016 at 9:09 pm
‘….The Tax evasion/avoidance and improperly registered players offences will be swept away as being historical, belonging to the old company.
At which time, the switcheroo wil be complete….’
__________
Remember, though, that SDM’s alleged tax cheating is NOT our principal concern ( although of course, not paying social taxes is a ‘footballing, sporting offence in itself).
Our main concern is that the wretched man cheated us all , including his fellow club chairmen etc, in football terms.
Now, RFC(IL) has already begun its descent into the dust of history. It is a relic of past times. Our only interest lies in ensuring that its headstone does not include the titles and honours it won by cheating.
In relation to the new club, our interest is in nailing the deceitful and manipulative Football Administrators who created and continue to foster the Big Lie, that the new club has right and title to be regarded as being the selfsame club that , as a matter of fact and law, is  in liquidation.
RFC(IL) is history: the people who foisted the Big Lie upon us are still in office.
They have to be our focus.
They  need to be made to apologise for their misdeeds, and correct them.
They must set the record straight, by refusing to allow TRFC’s claim to be RFC, and by refusing to pretend that the new club has any title to RFC’s honestly won honours.
That is, even if SDM’s use of EBT’s is found to be perfectly legal, it does not change anything.
The benighted s.d cheated us all in football matters, his club cheated us all in football matters, and the very guardians of our Football Sporting Integrity cheated us all -in football matters. And did so  before CW ever appeared on the scene.
As said before, the cheating of one s.o.b of a club owner is one thing. The cheating of the Administrators of a sport is something else entirely. The s.o.b has gone, his club has gone, but his would-be aiders and abettors are still in office.
Whatever may be the outcome of the particular legal matters -whether tax, or criminal- we have to nail our administrators and get things sorted. For the very continuance of professional football in this country as a clean, honest sport.
If we don’t, the game dies.

View Comment

4424me

4424mePosted on12:08 am - Jan 6, 2016


A few people have been found not guilty of murder but the victim remains dead
so it is with Rangers ….they died!!!,  everything after it is all part of an alleged fraudulent scheme which even if all participants are acquitted will not alter the fact that Rangers died

i await the inevitable thumbs down safe in the knowledge that trawling this website to find things to mark down keeps them busy and costs the new regime in fees for them to do so

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on12:23 am - Jan 6, 2016


Incidentally, on my way home from the High Court ( where the proceedings finished at about 3 pm), I bought a ‘Scotsman ‘. What with one thing and another, I only got round to reading it after eight o’clock tonight.
And guess what?
In the obituary for Lord Dervaird, who died on 23rd December, our very own LNS features prominently, as having conducted the enquiry into the alleged ‘magic circle’.
‘ Nimmo Smith did not find that Lord Dervaird’s conduct constituted criminal conduct and he had” no reason to believe that Lord Dervaird’s official conduct  as a judge had in any way been affected by the matters which led to his resignation”‘
Isn’t it a really very, very small world?
But good old LNS, nothing if not consistent, eh, what, what?

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on12:28 am - Jan 6, 2016


Has anyone else when posting got a  spammer blocking  message, asking to give email address and ask for access, and do the daft wee feckin arithmetic thingy to prove non-robot status? I’ve had it  before my last three or four posts and it’s bloody annoying.
What must I do to kill the feckin thing?

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on12:41 am - Jan 6, 2016


Homunculus, thanks for that,  I obviously misread your intentions. 

I’m still dubious about BDO, apparently they are never way from Ibrox, no doubt for legit. reasons to do with the liquidation of the old club.  But I also heard that they partake in match day hospitality in the directors box etc. often enough and you know what familiarity breeds?

One other thing I don’t understand.  Who’s decision was it to appeal the Court of Session judgement and take the EBT case to the Supreme Court in London?   I have heard BDO and/or HMRC.   One thing is for sure,  BDO will make another fortune from the creditors pool of money through this action via their fees, whereas as it stands now, this will cost HMRC a lot of money in legal costs. (With a possibity that it protects theit take from the creditors pot, but not guaranteed, unlike BDO)

I wouldn’t trust a finance firm as far as I could throw them.  Look at Duff & Duffer and all the shower of financiers involved in this case.  Who gave Rangers a clean bill of health to the idiots at the SFA?  Pinset Masons.  Were Deloite not involved too?  A parcel of rouges. 07  I hate paying taxes as much as the next man but I would rather trust HMRC any day. 04

View Comment

Avatar

torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958)Posted on12:43 am - Jan 6, 2016


John Clark 6th January 2016 at 12:28 am #Has anyone else when posting got a  spammer blocking  message, asking to give email address and ask for access, and do the daft wee feckin arithmetic thingy to prove non-robot status? I’ve had it  before my last three or four posts and it’s bloody annoying. What must I do to kill the feckin thing?
======================
I’ve had this,JC.
I’ve informed the mods & they’re on the case.
I found that if I restarted my PC I could post again.Don’t know the mechanics of it though.It’s an anti-spammer thing that’s doing more than it should.Sure the mods will deal with it asap.

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on1:05 am - Jan 6, 2016


jc & tjb, yes I got that arithmetic thing a couple of months ago.  It was really devious one night (early morning) and it included a minus figure which I didn’t notice. Something like -9+5=   It was a difficult night. 21

View Comment

woodstein

woodsteinPosted on1:21 am - Jan 6, 2016


jimbo 6th January 2016 at 12:41 am
 
“Pinset Masons. Were Deloite not involved too?”
 
Yes see attached

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on1:41 am - Jan 6, 2016


Woodstein, thanks for that, I thought they (Deloite) were involved.  And a QC too!  like I said earlier I trust none of them. This was them checking up on Charles Green and Sheik I. A. How thick could they be? Too much trust in self declarations methinks. Like the SFA. Probably don’t have the wherewithal to do a bit of investigation.

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on1:55 am - Jan 6, 2016


Run out of time to edit there.  Ironically the only time I heard of an effective ‘fit & proper’ test was by an internal investigation by a sub committee of the Rangers Board into Craig Whyte.  The report was scathing of the shyster but who ignored it?  You’ve got it the Knight of the Realm. SDM.  He then sold the debt ridden club for a pound.  But as he explained later he was ‘duped’.

View Comment

Avatar

FisianiPosted on2:45 am - Jan 6, 2016


Oh what a tangled web we weave………
It seems that the legal cases are piling up and so are the costs. Footballers need paid in January, Feb, March, April and May to complete a season. There are not the funds to do so. Some mug has to give them millions. 
The SFA will be found to be cheats and in collusion. They will NEVER be honest sports administrators. Gold will never be give to the silver medalists who were cheated unlike every other sporting code. 
Scotland- the best little country that money can buy!
Fines issued are not paid. “Conditional licences” are available. Assets purchased for 2.5M are suddenly worth 46M!!!!
Trading whilst insolvent is apparently legal in Scotland.

View Comment

Avatar

HirsutePursuitPosted on2:46 am - Jan 6, 2016


neepheid 5th January 2016 at 9:48 am #What remains of my mind has been chewing over the question of whether the Rangers Retail exclusive worldwide licence would survive the liquidation of its owner, TRFC. I believe that the answer to that question is likely to determine King’s next course of action. I can see the point of a liquidation if it effectively breaks Ashley’s grip over retail, but if it doesn’t achieve that, then I really don’t see the point.When you can’t answer a question yourself, find someone who can, is usually a good approach, so I wrote to the very nice people at the Intellectual Property Office, asking whether a licence over IP survives a change of owner.I got an almost immediate response, referring me to The Trade Marks Act 1994, Section 28(3) which states that “Unless the licence provides otherwise, it is binding on a successor in title to the grantor’s interest”.So if TRFC was liquidated, and ownership of the IP transferred, whether to RIFC or another Newco, then the licence for Rangers Retail to use the IP would remain in place.I also learned (from the IPO website) that once an owner of IP licences it, then unless the licence explicitly says otherwise, then the owner has no right to use the IP without the licensee’s consent.
 143 1  Rate This View Comment
……………………………..
You are, of course, correct.
I had not properly researched this. I was going to talk about, but then realised that Section 178 of the Insolvency Act applies only to England and Wales. Whilst this section of the Act gives a liquidator south of the border the power to disclaim onerous property, their counterparts in Scotland have no such luxury.
In England, contracts and licence agreements which are unprofitable or would inhibit the realisation of assets would be covered by Section 178. Although RR may have retained rights to use the club’s IP, obligations of the licensor under the licencing agreement – such as restrictions on distribution channels and purchasing unsold stock from the licencee – could have been dropped.
Hilariously enough, had Monsieur Verte de Normandy actually used Sevco 5088, the current IP licensor would have been registered in England.

View Comment

Avatar

upthehoopsPosted on7:20 am - Jan 6, 2016


Reading the Daily Record online, and there is a clear spin already in their headlines of this court case. “Claims five chiefs plotted to put club into insolvency so Craig Whyte could buy it back debt-free”. Are we to seriously believe Rangers were under no threat at all of at least Administration without Champions League money? There was a £4M wee tax bill and a potential big tax bill running into tens of millions, which as it stands is now owed. Into the bargain they owed the bank £18M. Forgive me for thinking Rangers were under a very real threat of an insolvency event whether Whyte bought them or not. If any crimes are proven beyond doubt in court then so be it, but if Rangers were under no threat at the time, Whyte would not have got near them.

View Comment

Avatar

jimmciPosted on9:38 am - Jan 6, 2016


Just read the rap sheer summary from the Courts yesterday in the papers this morning.Oh, dear. There are multiple references in the charges relating to the Club.Not one I can see that mentions the Company; No Oldco, no Newco. Simply the Club.
Seems our Court system does not recognise the SMSM fantasies but, rather, deals in hard facts.
Surely this is very uncomfortable even for our Media? Surely?

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on9:48 am - Jan 6, 2016


HirsutePursuit 6th January 2016 at 2:46 am
============================

If I remember correctly the Rangers Retail Ltd joint venture was set up under English Law. Bearing in mind that it was actually a limited company, set up and registered in England and was originally called something like SDI Newco No.1 Ltd. It was wholly owned by SDI when first set up.

I am not sure if and how this would effect the licence to use the IP. Would that normally be expected to be covered under Scots law as the intellectual property belongs to a company registered in Scotland, or could that licence be covered by English law if that is what the parties involved wanted.

View Comment

Avatar

wottpiPosted on9:55 am - Jan 6, 2016


Yesterday Easyjambo included the following with regard to the indictments

CW, GW & DG made false representations to Murray Holdings Ltd re funding of the purchase and the future funding of the club including the wee tax case (£2,800,000) and an H&S liability (£1,700,000)

Today the DR reports

Whyte, 44, is accused with Grier, Whitehouse, Clark and Withey of failing to pay a £2.8million tax bill and VAT, PAYE or national insurance while running the football business.

Therefore can we now assume that the prosecutors believe there was an outstanding tax bill regarding the wee tax case (£2.8m) point of sale.

SDM and those operating Rangers prior to the sale appear to have accepted there was an outstanding tax bill as it appears to have been, correctly, identified as a liability for the company and thus clearly identified in the sale conditions.

The only people in Scotland who seem to determine that the wee tax case bill was not outstanding until some time, miraculously after Uefa’s 30 June 2011 deadline date was the SFA. 

I wonder if the fraud case will put in concrete, via the courts,  the fact that the wee tax case was due at the time of the application for a Euro licence in 2011.

Therefore the SFA were ‘duped’ and thus incompetent or simply devious in their own (yet again) torturous interpretation of rules to help one particualr club.

Either way another I hope we have another nail in the coffin but my guess is that the heads that should roll may well have done a runner before the fraud case gets resolved.

View Comment

Avatar

Jimmy BonesPosted on9:57 am - Jan 6, 2016


Re. Jimbo at 10:53 on 5th January – However SFA, SPFL, the Court of Session, the High Court, EUFA are all complicit in one way or another….
I seem to recall that the RFC administration process was referred to a/the? professional association of administrators in addition to being considered by a Scottish judge (Lord Hope maybe) and that both of these must also be considered complicit as they seem to have passed the process as “fit and proper”.   Apologies for my poor recollection, perhaps someone can confirm or correct this ?

View Comment

Matty Roth

Matty RothPosted on9:59 am - Jan 6, 2016


upthehoops 6th January 2016 at 7:20 am #Reading the Daily Record online, and there is a clear spin already in their headlines of this court case. “Claims five chiefs plotted to put club into insolvency so Craig Whyte could buy it back debt-free”. Are we to seriously believe Rangers were under no threat at all of at least Administration without Champions League money? There was a £4M wee tax bill and a potential big tax bill running into tens of millions, which as it stands is now owed. Into the bargain they owed the bank £18M. Forgive me for thinking Rangers were under a very real threat of an insolvency event whether Whyte bought them or not. If any crimes are proven beyond doubt in court then so be it, but if Rangers were under no threat at the time, Whyte would not have got near them.
 

UTH, we both know that newspapers such as this one, and in fact many of the larger circulation papers in Scotland consistently print nothing but spin with regard to this particular new club. Just as they did their old club.
IMO we can’t trust a single word they print and we should know we won’t get any honest coverage of this whole affair from our print media.
The scottish media sector specialising in football coverage is crammed with equivocators and deceivers.
The only explanation I can find for this is such people and their lies must be effectively paid for in some way.
I have to make a small exception for the one or two who don’t tow the line and get the occasional story out but there are very few and far between IMO.
Of course, I know you already know exactly what to expect from such pitiful publications and you are merely pointing out the rotten smell in case any of us should become inured to the stench.
Its no wonder chip shops no longer wrap fish suppers in the pages of these fetid publications – the Food Standards Agency would be testing for listeria and all sorts..

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on10:02 am - Jan 6, 2016


“Whyte, 44, is accused with Grier, Whitehouse, Clark and Withey of failing to pay a £2.8million tax bill and VAT, PAYE or national insurance while running the football business.”

I think they will find that if it was Rangers which was registered for VAT and for PAYE then it was Rangers which failed to pay it’s VAT, PAYE and NI contributions.

That may have been through the decisions and actions of it’s officers at the time, however that is exactly the same for every other body corporate.

How often do we read that Starbucks, or Vodaphone, or Amazon failed to pay their taxes. Why is that different for Rangers.

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on10:11 am - Jan 6, 2016


Homunculus,

I thought the same, but I wonder if paying the wee tax bill was a formal clause within the takeover bid – hence its inclusion here.  We were always told that SDM assumed it would be paid, but I wonder if it was contractually agreed to be paid?  

UTH,

Thereins the quandary for the no doubt very busy dupery theorists.  What role would Lloyds (for it was they by then) have played had SDM not accepted the £1.  Given their low exposure in Scotland and given that BoS were still emerging from a darker place with bigger problems, I suspect they might have pulled the plug sooner rather than later.  Had they had the balls to wait until the BTC came out of course they might have had a change of heart, but could the RRM have financed it that long, and been willing to do so in the prevailing atmosphere of a looming large tax bill?  

View Comment

vansen

vansenPosted on10:14 am - Jan 6, 2016


The outlined charges from yesterday were very interesting. Obviously justice must run its course but we may find, next season, that there is a club operating in the top division whose assets were purchased fraudulently, whose existence was created to run a criminal enterprise, who defrauded investors out of tens of millions, whose players and very respectful management team operate out of the proceeds of crime and have a South African based criminal running it.
And somehow, all the fans of all the other clubs will be held responsible by fans who sing illegal songs, sitting in a stadium purchased fraudulently and run by a criminal ☺ 

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on10:18 am - Jan 6, 2016


There seems to be some confusion in bear land over the source and, particularly, disposal of funds following the new charge sheet.  In summary Whyte drew down circa £28m from Ticketus, Merchant and Jerome.  He paid off 18m to Lloyds but there then seems to be an assumption that he simply pocketed the other £10m.  On the basis that he ran RFC for a year, and that annually it costs, say, £10m to run RFC (sorry be the owner of the owner of the owner and operator of RFC21) does that explain the shortfall?  VAT, PAYE and NIco shortfall were also £9m I think, but then was the VAT arrear part of the £28m received?

Gawd, now I’ve confused myself!

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on10:22 am - Jan 6, 2016


vansen 6th January 2016 at 10:14 am
# The outlined charges from yesterday were very interesting. Obviously justice must run its course but we may find, next season, that there is a club operating in the top division whose assets were purchased fraudulently, whose existence was created to run a criminal enterprise, who defrauded investors out of tens of millions, whose players and very respectful management team operate out of the proceeds of crime and have a South African based criminal running it. And somehow, all the fans of all the other clubs will be held responsible by fans who sing illegal songs, sitting in a stadium purchased fraudulently and run by a criminal  

Yeah yeah but but whitaboot thon Juninho eh eh?

View Comment

tykebhoy

tykebhoyPosted on10:24 am - Jan 6, 2016


Homunculus the short answer is Starbucks and Amazon have never got as far as court proceedings mainly because they have been exploiting legal loopholes.  Remember also that Whyte was signatory to and Withey and Grier as advisors at the time were at least party to the Purchase Agreement a contractual document in which it was promised the WTC would be paid after the sale.

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on10:38 am - Jan 6, 2016


Oh, interesting point!

If I sell my car to you and you promise to drive safely and keep it taxed can I enforce that you do?  Normally, you, the purchaser would sign an indemnity that any fines/liabilities etc following the sale date would not fall on the seller, but there the seller’s rights end I would have thought?

I can see how SDM could keep himself out of the mire – if he was duped into thinking via the purchase agreement that the WTC would be paid but ordinarily, if you were that bothered, you would surely expect the WTC monies up front to be ring fenced as part of the transaction no?  Although DG and GW maybe said it was of course? But then you would expect SDM’s lawyers to expect confirmation no?  And what about RFC’s lawyers?  surely as a separate entity they were represented separately?  What?  oh, ok, scratch that last point!

View Comment

tykebhoy

tykebhoyPosted on10:41 am - Jan 6, 2016


Smugas, weren’t several players ‘rewarded’ with more lucrative contracts under Whyte.  Which for that season only would mean much more than a £10m subsidy would be required, especially as Mr. Sooper blew the European money they shouldn’t have had a shot at anyway.  I think the unpaid VAT, PAYE and NI was more like £15m but I don’t think CW pocketed much,if any of the additional £10m otherwise there would probably be another indictment of misappropriation/theft in my opinion.

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on10:59 am - Jan 6, 2016


TB,

Having quickly read the Herald article something triggered in my mind also – was there not a 2nd drawdown of Ticketus moneys around 2012 (so included in the 28m total drawdown I stated) that was used to ‘repay’ the dues back to Ticketus for the season 11/12 Season tickets when they fell due?  Obviously that then means the actual ST money collected was used for the purposes you state above but partly explains the inflated Gross Ticketus figure?

Also, small point for the court attenders – why is the next procedural hearing in Aberdeen?  Sounds a bit ‘Wallacey’ being taken to the four corners if you ask me!    

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on11:15 am - Jan 6, 2016


Smugas 6th January 2016 at 10:18 am #
———————————————
From the D&P Creditors report dated 5 April 2012 re the Ticketus deal.
(This is a publically available document so should not be in breach of the court’s contempt order)

£20,300,000 – Amount advanced May 11 – £25,400,000 – Revenue expected in return
£3,000,000 – Repaid June 2011
£5,000,000 – Advanced September 2011 – £9,300,000 – Revenue expected in return
£5,000,000 – Repaid September 2011
£26,700,000 – Creditors Claim April 2012 – (£25.4M + £9.3M – £8M)

In essence Rangers actually “repaid” £8M to Ticketus from the ST proceeds for season 2011/12, being the first instalment in the repayment schedule. 

The Ticketus claim against Whyte ended up with the Judge awarding £17.3M in damages which equated to their net outlay. (£20.3M-£3M+£5M -£5M)

View Comment

Avatar

redetinPosted on11:18 am - Jan 6, 2016


If you have some time to spare, it is worth reading the history of the Nissan UK dealership, one of the biggest tax frauds ever perpetrated. The dealership company was specifically set up as a fraudulent enterprise, with tax evasion and fraudulent invoicing its modus operanti. Would anyone ever suspect a company which was a “household name” in car sales being a fraud.
Octav Botnar, the Chairman, was never prosecuted but Michael Hunt, Managing Director, was handed an 8-year sentence.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/nissan-chief-jailed-for-biggest-tax-swindle-former-managing-director-is-sentenced-to-eight-years-for-1482079.html
There is an interesting link to the failure of Derby County, with the strong suggestion that money flowed from Michael Hunt to Derby. The directors were defrauding the club within days of the takeover.
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/david-conn-inside-sport-blog/2009/jul/20/derbycounty-ukcrime
http://www.theguardian.com/football/2009/jul/22/david-conn-derby-county
The judge in the Derby case said: “You, like so many people who commit business and professional crime, somehow give the impression that you do not believe the rules apply to you, and that what you do in your business life is perfectly acceptable.
“The spectre of prominent members of society behaving in such a dishonest way on this scale, and without any apparent hesitation, conscience or remorse, is very unedifying.”
It seems that certain businessmen are content to engage in dubious practices in full public view, unhindered by press and broadcasting media that are prepared, without scrutiny of their business practices, to cheer on anyone who has the label of “millionaire”.

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on11:27 am - Jan 6, 2016


Smugas 6th January 2016 at 10:59 am #
Also, small point for the court attenders – why is the next procedural hearing in Aberdeen?  Sounds a bit ‘Wallacey’ being taken to the four corners if you ask me! 
============================
It’s just to fit in with the judge’s diary, who will be assigned to Aberdeen High Court for a few weeks.

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on11:27 am - Jan 6, 2016


Smugas 6th January 2016 at 10:59 am
‘… why is the next procedural hearing in Aberdeen?…
_________
The Judge made much of the fact that he will be on circuit for a month up in Aberdeen. Trying to square the diary commitments of judge and Counsel when so many are involved is a huge problem.( The accused were excused the need to be personally present)

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on11:32 am - Jan 6, 2016


Got it.  The missing £m’s are essentially the profit margin that Ticketus expected to make on their net outlay – the interest on their loan if you like.  So it comes down to if RFC (in whatever guise under whoever’s control) were a/ charging enough on the sale of enough tickets to make and meet the margin and b/ were operating profitably to avoid eroding away said margin whilst it was sitting temporarily in their hands?  Guess history tells us the answer to that one. Plus of course the trifling matter of VAT on those sales. This administration wasn’t just robbing peter was it? It was mugging him, robbing him, giving it back to him just to mug and rob and him again so they could spend the proceeds. Twice.

Can’t help but say that Ticketus should have known better given the underlying financials, but then were they operating off historic accounts showing supposed profits signed off by sir anyone?  Anyone at all? no?

Thanks for Aberdeen feedback.

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on12:02 pm - Jan 6, 2016


tykebhoy 6th January 2016 at 10:24 am
===========================
Sorry but all of the talk of the wee tax case debt being linked to the sale makes no sense to me.

Rangers owed the money, not David Murray or anyone else, Rangers.

David Murray was selling his shares in Rangers to Craig Whyte. He wasn’t selling Rangers, he was selling his shares.

Rangers still existed and still owed the money. The fact that someone else now owned their shares is irrelevant. It had not suddenly changed from being David Murray’s debt to Craig Whyte’s. It was a debt owed by Rangers.

HMRC petitioned for and obtained arrestments on Rangers’ bank accounts.

There may have been some sort of arrangement where David Murray had made promises to HMRC to pay the money by a certain time, and the deal included Craig Whyte fulfilling those promises, however that is a different issue. It is a matter between David Murray and Craig Whyte.

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on12:27 pm - Jan 6, 2016


The Ticketus business model was fairly simple and was normally used to assist clubs with cash flow issues. Basically they bought season tickets in advance but at a discount. This gave the club the money in advance when it needed it, before season ticket time. The tickets were then sold by the club at face value and the money passed to Ticketus, minus an administration fee paid to the club. The fans didn’t even need to know it was going on. It was more common amongst clubs with issues getting an overdraft as the discount could be 20% or 25%. That’s really over a few months so as an interest rate is pretty horrendous. As I understand it Rangers had used this type of facility in the past. To see themselves through until season ticket money started coming in.

Ticketus did not lend money to Rangers, they bought season Tickets but the supply was never made to them, making them a creditor. In theory every season ticket holder is a creditor, with the amount being reduced every time a game is played, until the amount is zero.

Ticketus believed that as they owned the season tickets for several years then that “right” would survive an insolvency event. The administrators disagreed and said they were just another creditor. The Court of Session agreed with the Administrators and Ticketus were added to the list of creditors, to the value of the amount they had paid to buy the tickets, minus any payments they had received in relation to them. As I understand it these sorts of “rights” are treated differently in Scotland than they are in England.

View Comment

Avatar

timabhouyPosted on1:35 pm - Jan 6, 2016


http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/unsustainable-costs-and-hostile-debtors/
Big Mikes Revving his Tanks again . 

View Comment

ThomTheThim

ThomTheThimPosted on2:08 pm - Jan 6, 2016


John Clark 5th January 2016 at 11:57 pm #ThomTheThim 5th January 2016 at 9:09 pm‘….The Tax evasion/avoidance and improperly registered players offences will be swept away as being historical, belonging to the old company.At which time, the switcheroo wil be complete….’__________
Edit.
John, Agree completely with your response to my post.
It is the SFA who facilitated the whole shebang and it is they who must be called to account.
The results of the court cases have a mere passing interest for me, as it is the footballing crimes perpetrated  by the Murray regime that are of greater concern to the Game.
The cast of characters in conflict with Her Majesty, were nowhere near the scene of the corruption.
My fear is that, like the LNS decision to bind the DOS and EBT schemes together, the authorities will use the conclusion of the trials as an excuse to “move on”.
Away at the start of this business, a wise bampot counsel, suggested that the switcheroo would be done in three stages.
I believe we are approaching the end of the second stage, with the tribulations of TRFC and Third Rangers await in the wings.
When that happens, Scottish football is finished.
At present, I feel I am watching the equivalent of a pre season tournament, where they award a trophy for the winner. A worthless trinket in terms of sporting integrity.

View Comment

woodstein

woodsteinPosted on2:15 pm - Jan 6, 2016


Homunculus 6th January 2016 at 12:02 pm #
 
Looking at the definitions and interpretations  in the share purchase agreement (page 8)
The tax liablity is defined as  “means the liablility of the company  in respect of the discount option scheme…… assessed at £2,827,801.
 
Then there is the warranty (see attached) regarding this, and as you say  “There may have been some sort of arrangement” is what  the attachment describes.
 
*Another contributor recently posted this, which prompted me to read the SPA again.10

View Comment

Barcabhoy

BarcabhoyPosted on3:14 pm - Jan 6, 2016


The court report from James Doleman states that Green & Ahmad [are alleged to have] raised £21 million from the IPO by use of fraud. I haven’t seen that reported elsewhere , however it seems to me that this will become a potentially fatal consequence for RIFC if there are criminal charges relating to the IPO , and the charges result in guilty verdicts.
The Beneficiary of this was RIFC . Regardless of how the received IPO funds were spent by the RIFC board , the funds were paid to Rangers by the investors. Those investors in the main lost significantly . If the court decides that the investors were fraudulently induced , then I would have thought RIFC would be where they would look for recompense. Cenkos may have some responsibility , however Rangers were the ones who received £21 million of investors monies. 
Mike Ashley was one of these investors. Given his recent litigiousness against King, it would be a surprise if he kept his powder dry if fraud is proved 

View Comment

woodstein

woodsteinPosted on3:16 pm - Jan 6, 2016


Re previous post, ’twas  easyJambo 26th December 2015 at 7:36 pm #                  

View Comment

Avatar

bobcobbPosted on3:50 pm - Jan 6, 2016


Just a quick question that I hope someone will be able to answer for me.
Did the SFA grant Newco the licence/membership on the condition that Craig White was not  involved in any way with RIFC/TRFC or any of the officers of that company?
My memory tells me that this was one of the SFA’s conditions and I find myself wondering how that squares with some of the items contained within the charge sheet, particularly when we get to charges 12, 13 & 14.
To be clear: I don’t want to discuss the case for reasons that we are all aware of (and MODS can delete if they think the post crosses that line). My focus is on the role of the SFA and their mis-governance throughout  this saga.
My mum always told me when I as a kid that liars would always be found out as they would tell so many lies that they would forget a previous lie when telling a new, contradictory one. I’m beginning to wonder if this is finally happening to the SFA.

I hope so.

View Comment

Avatar

bfbpuzzledPosted on4:00 pm - Jan 6, 2016


Careful there Barca – you are reporting charges as proven facts. 
The accused here will be other guilty or not guilty to the charges. (Or there may be a not proven verdict which would be interesting). Not guilty to the charges is not not necessarily synonymous with innocent albeit that the popular verdict will be if not found guilty that “they got aff wi it”. 
Occasionaly I get a moment where I realise how bizarre this whole saga is and that it getting more such daily.

When the saviour is a tax evading scoundrel who took his money from other people’s pensions there is somethimg far wrong.
There is an irony in the goodwill for a pound payment. This is now being used as security for a £5 million pound loan by one of the biggest sweaters of every penny from the goodwill in a brand known to man and it is doubtless good security unless and until it passes completely to him at which point the only folk buying will be other than the carriers of then lunc pound.
There is a computer game somewhere to be derived from this sim Rangers perhaps.

View Comment

paddy malarkey

paddy malarkeyPosted on4:03 pm - Jan 6, 2016


Barcabhoy 6th January 2016 at 3:14 pm #

Barca ,
where would this leave TRFC ?  They borrowed , and still owe, millions of pounds that may have been fraudulently obtained by RIFC .  Sale of assets,etc, to fund repayment ?

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on4:09 pm - Jan 6, 2016


Barcabhoy 6th January 2016 at 3:14 pm #
———————————————-
Here’s the full text from the section of the Indictment dealing with the IPO:

(f) change the name of Sevco Scotland Limited on or about 31 July 2012 to the Rangers Football Club Limited and on 28 November 2012 you CHARLES ALEXANDER GREEN and SHEIK IMRAN AHMAD, known as IMRAN AHMAD and the directors of The Rangers Football Club Limited did resolve that the shareholders of The Rangers Football Club Limited would transfer their ordinary shares in the company to a new holding company to be called The Rangers International Football Club plc,
 
(g) appoint Cenkos Securities plc, 6-8 Tokenhouse Yard, London, (“Cenkos”) as the nominated advisor and broker for The Rangers International Football Club plc and to issue documents including a Prospectus placing and offering by way of an Initial Public Offering (“IPO”) ordinary shares in The Rangers International Football Club plc from 8 December 2012 to 18 December 2012 with the shares being traded on the Alternative Investment Market (“AIM”) of the London Stock Exchange plc and you CHARLES ALEXANDER GREEN and SHEIK IMRAN AHMAD, known as IMRAN AHMAD did fail to disclose the true nature and source of the funding obtained through Sevco 5088 Limited and Sevco Scotland Limited as described in paragraphs (a) to (e) above, fail to advise Cenkos, Investors, Shareholders and the Alternative Investment Market (“AIM”) of the London Stock Exchange plc that a Letter Before Claim had been intimated to you CHARLES ALEXANDER GREEN and SHEIK IMRAN AHMAD, known as IMRAN AHMAD on 12 and 13 December 2012;and
 
(h) by means of said Initial Public Offering (“IPO”) of shares raise the sum of £21,000,000 or thereby by fraud 

all whereby you did conspire to and did defraud investors in Sevco 5088 Limited, defraud investors in The Rangers International Football Club plc, obtain shares and money by fraud and increase the value of your shares in The Rangers International Football Club plc and it will be shown that the said offence was aggravated in terms of Section 29 of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010;

View Comment

Barcabhoy

BarcabhoyPosted on4:11 pm - Jan 6, 2016


Bfbpuzzled

I’m not doing that at all. I said IF there were charges, and those charges resulted in a guilty verdict. 

View Comment

StevieBC

StevieBCPosted on4:13 pm - Jan 6, 2016


I suppose with all these RFC/Sevco5088/Sevco/TRFC related charges now going through the court system, the SFA & SPFL will use and abuse this situation to simply blank any questions at all about the Ibrox club(s).

Any further questions directed at Hampden about revisiting the LNS Commission could be kicked well into the long grass ? 

And could Regan and/or Doncaster – and even Ogilvie – be called up as witnesses ?
Now that could be very interesting…  

View Comment

Avatar

parnnoyedPosted on4:14 pm - Jan 6, 2016


The crooks, asset strippers and assorted spivs are squabbling over the carcass. Court appearances could go on ad nauseum. Hell mend them.
The switcheroo continues aided and abetted by the corrupt administration of our sport. All else is a sideshow. I could not give a toss about the spivs, save that justice prevails and the public purse is compensated.  
It is patently obvious that the entire sham has been the vehicle by which the SFA have preserved the position of the offending club. ONE CLUB has been treated as immortal to the detriment of the rest of the members. This has been the sole object of the entire pantomime. 
A new and impartial governing body must be the priority of the remaining clubs. 
The time for action is upon us. All means should be considered, including resignation en masse. What are the chances of such a mass withdrawal with a view to forming our own “sustainable business model” clubs only association?

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on4:30 pm - Jan 6, 2016


Another 25 jobs to go at the Herald and the Evening Times. (not great for the individuals affected)

http://news.stv.tv/west-central/1338143-herald-times-to-cut-up-to-25-jobs-for-fourth-time-in-just-over-year/

I wonder if the 25 will include some puff piece stenographers.

View Comment

Avatar

Ex LudoPosted on4:32 pm - Jan 6, 2016


Fan summit at Hampden on Sunday. I take it everyone has a ticket?

View Comment

StevieBC

StevieBCPosted on4:33 pm - Jan 6, 2016


Regardless of whether individuals are found guilty or not, surely to God these charges related to ‘Rangers’ has “Bringing the game into disrepute” written all over them in HUGE LETTERS ?!

And like it or not, the image of the whole Scottish senior game is further tarnished by this 1 club’s behaviour.

What will Regan and Doncaster do about it ?
…back into the bunker they go… 08

View Comment

yourhavingalaugh

yourhavingalaughPosted on4:44 pm - Jan 6, 2016


Surely if any of the custodians of our football in Scotland are found to be involved with the chicanery that attaches them to the club from Govan in any form that a court would deem to have been totally against the rules of their position,a judge would suggest that they should be chased to pay back the salaries they have taken for that role and any other punishment that the law might see fit to charge them with.
Now that would be nice.

View Comment

Avatar

goosygoosyPosted on5:00 pm - Jan 6, 2016


Could MA kick off a more wide spread enquiry into corruption with his Judicial Review of the King FPP decision?

There must be lots of written evidence at Hampden that proves corruption to the satisfaction of a Judge
For example
I find it hard to believe that the key people in the governing bodies did anything that committed them legally or generated serious adverse publicity in 2012 without taking legal advice
If true they either followed it, ignored it or did a pick and mix
Either way
Now that a massive criminal case has ensued the one thing we can be certain about is that their legal advisors will have retained all the records which kept their hands clean.This should ensure that the copies held at Hampden are not destroyed
These documents will surely include evidence that relates to  deliberate corruption.There has been so much corruption over RFC  its impossible to believe some of it cannot be proved beyond all doubt
Off the top of the head I can think of corrupt behaviour associated with
side letters, the wee tax case cover up, the big tax case cover up, the UEFA licence cover up, the advance knowledge of Administration,the transfer of the licence, the 5 way Agreement, the release of player registrations, the name change  for the Brechin match, the terms of the RR Agreement, the TV deal, the Armageddon Statement, the LNS enquiry, the upsurge in sectarian chanting from Administration onwards, the calling out of a Raith Rovers Director etc etc etc
I could go on
Suffice it to say
If I was MA I would ensure that the governing bodies were asked to provide all legal correspondence and minutes of meeting that relate to the role of DCK since the sale of the liquidated RFC
Hopefully
A successful result might pave the way for crowd funding a more widespread  review of corruption at Hampden

We`re  just as important as FIFA when it comes to ethical behaviour

Our sport needs to be cleaned up

View Comment

Avatar

Bogs DolloxPosted on5:03 pm - Jan 6, 2016


parnnoyed 6th January 2016 at 4:14 pm #
The crooks, asset strippers and assorted spivs are squabbling over the carcass. Court appearances could go on ad nauseum. Hell mend them. The switcheroo continues aided and abetted by the corrupt administration of our sport. All else is a sideshow. I could not give a toss about the spivs, save that justice prevails and the public purse is compensated.   It is patently obvious that the entire sham has been the vehicle by which the SFA have preserved the position of the offending club. ONE CLUB has been treated as immortal to the detriment of the rest of the members. This has been the sole object of the entire pantomime.  A new and impartial governing body must be the priority of the remaining clubs.  The time for action is upon us. All means should be considered, including resignation en masse. What are the chances of such a mass withdrawal with a view to forming our own “sustainable business model” clubs only association?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Excellent summary of the role of the SFA in all of this. They allowed this to happen on their watch with no thought given to the consequences for the whole of Scottish Football. They all need to go.

View Comment

scottc

scottcPosted on5:38 pm - Jan 6, 2016


Homunculus 6th January 2016 at 12:02 pm #tykebhoy 6th January 2016 at 10:24 am===========================Sorry but all of the talk of the wee tax case debt being linked to the sale makes no sense to me.
Rangers owed the money, not David Murray or anyone else, Rangers.
David Murray was selling his shares in Rangers to Craig Whyte. He wasn’t selling Rangers, he was selling his shares.
Rangers still existed and still owed the money. The fact that someone else now owned their shares is irrelevant. It had not suddenly changed from being David Murray’s debt to Craig Whyte’s. It was a debt owed by Rangers.
HMRC petitioned for and obtained arrestments on Rangers’ bank accounts.
There may have been some sort of arrangement where David Murray had made promises to HMRC to pay the money by a certain time, and the deal included Craig Whyte fulfilling those promises, however that is a different issue. It is a matter between David Murray and Craig Whyte.

Homunculus, As I recall, when CW was first going to be buying RFC he was going to be paying something of the order of £6m, but he was allegedly not advised of the existence of the WTC. His lawyers apparently spotted it and when it was pointed out to super-duper SDM, the asking price was very rapidly negotiated down to £1. That is my recollection anyway and I am sure there were some documents released detailing that stream of events

View Comment

Avatar

Carfins FinestPosted on5:44 pm - Jan 6, 2016


The one name missing from all the latest shenanigans is a name that is almost always missing but, in my opinion the name of Mr Andrew Dickson should never be forgotten in this omnishambles. He was even on the board of the Rangers Youth business that handed over the cash to C Green to help fund the original sale of assets. Rangers Youth has gone the way of OLD Rangers by the way.

View Comment

Avatar

nawlitePosted on6:15 pm - Jan 6, 2016


Do you think there’s a chance that someone in the media might ask one simple question of the SFA……”What have you learned from handling the “Rangers” issue since 2011?”

NB Yes I know ‘the “Rangers” issue’ started long before this, but I’d be happy to see their answer even if based only on the question I pose.

View Comment

Avatar

upthehoopsPosted on8:11 pm - Jan 6, 2016


There are a number of comments appearing on social media asking why the decision on BDO seeking leave to appeal to the Supreme Court is taking so long. Although I am a layman in such matters I am getting an uneasy feeling about this. No less than three Judges had a completely united view on this case. Refusing BDO leave to appeal would leave David Murray in particular looking very isolated and vulnerable at a time things are really hotting up. After all, it would then be set in tablets of stone forever that he operated a scheme designed to deny the public purse tens of millions it was due. Surely a decision should be issued by now?

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on8:17 pm - Jan 6, 2016


It appears the two ‘starletts’ have signed 4 year contracts with TRFC! That’s pre-contracts, so not adding to the wage bill at this time. It would appear that Stanley from Accrington has requested a fee for their early release…or their agent insisted that they be paid for playing14

View Comment

StevieBC

StevieBCPosted on8:23 pm - Jan 6, 2016


SheepWatch Update 191919

In Phil’s latest piece he states that a “hack at a national title” had an opinion piece inserted under his name – when the hack didn’t write it – or agree with the content ! And he only found out after the event.

A tough call, but what action should a SMSM journalist take in response to such devious, dishonest tactics ?

Yes: according to Phil he’s keeping quiet to protect his job.

Agreed, it can’t be easy at all making a living as a print journalist these days…but whoever the hack is, he has sold his soul, and presumably he could expect more ‘ghosted’ articles appearing under his name in future ?

Are the hacks now being removed from their ‘copy/paste functions’ on behalf of PR companies ?

 

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on8:45 pm - Jan 6, 2016


I think JJ is up to his old tricks again, posting everything from the plain misleading to the frankly wrong.

https://johnjamessite.wordpress.com/2016/01/06/the-proceeds-of-crime/

The Proceeds of Crime Act could lead to the confiscation of all Rangers assets, including Ibrox stadium.

=================================

I don’t intend going into all of it, just a warning to take it all with a very large pinch of salt. For example, and I’m speaking just about POCA as that is what he is talking about.

“The Rangers Football Club plc is a company. If the assets of this company, which I have specified in my previous article The Sevco Scotland Bake Off, were obtained by criminal activity, then the police will be compelled to confiscate these assets.”

Not only will the Police not be compelled to confiscate these assets, they couldn’t even if they wanted to. They simply don’t have the power. Crown Office may petition the Court for a restraint order to prevent the assets being sold but that is all they would do. If people are found guilty then the Court will consider assets they own and look to confiscation, but not of those specific assets.

“There are those who suggest that BDO are the default owners of the assets should they be subject to confiscation orders.”

The assets will not be the subject of a confiscation order under POCA. If people are found guilty of offences then they personally may be the subject of a confiscation order. However that will be either the amount by which they benefited, or the realiseable value of their assets. Whichever is less.

He then goes onto talk about who the assets may “revert” to. It’s an interesting discussion but it has nothing to do with confiscation / POCA.

Confiscation, as it relates to POCA is in effect part of sentencing (in lay terms). The court is told that the person has benefited by X amount and he is ordered to pay that, in addition to any prison sentence. How he pays it is up to him. That can be varied later, if further assets are discovered, but only up to the limit of his benefit.

Now JJ may be getting confused with civil recovery, which also forms part of POCA. However that, as the name suggests, does not relate to people who have been found guilty. Those are separate provisions.

One last part

“I envisage no possibility whatsoever where BDO will have any title on the assets. Should the Crown order the confiscation of the assets, RIFC/TRFC will have to find a new stadium and training ground as these will be sold under the provisions of the Proceeds of Crime Act. There is no guarantee that they would be sold to any company wishing to engage in football activities.”

There is a section within POCA in relation to the specific assets however that relates to the situation where an order is made but the subject does not pay the amount on the order (and the offence is not under appeal). In such a case an adminstrator can be put in to take control of the assets and sell them to realise their value.

However the main point is, criminal confiscation orders are made against people. They relate to the benefit of the crime and the assets owned by the specific person. If the person does not own an asset then it’s value is irrelevant.

There is a separate debate with regards whether the assets were disposed of in an improper manner, for example for too small a cost. However that is an entirely different issue and one he doesn’t go into.

As I said I have no intention of going through all of his blog, just a bit of a warning. Take it very much with a pinch of salt.

With apologies to legal types for my “shorthand” way of discussing this.

View Comment

Avatar

Bayview GoldPosted on9:00 pm - Jan 6, 2016


Dropping out of lurking mode for a few mins to wish everyone at SFM and all contributors and lurkers a very (if belated) happy new year and a reminder to keep fighting the good fight.
Scottish football needs a Strong Arbroath, East Fife and judiciary in 2016!

View Comment

Avatar

TheGamesABogeyPosted on9:07 pm - Jan 6, 2016


I have had a look at the POCA legislatiion and one of the things about it, which is not common knowledge is that it is an offence to not report a potential offence where you only have a suspicion. In other words if you have suspicion/knowledge/evidence of an offence and have not reported it to the NCA you have broken the law.
As an aside, I see from tweets that there are some TRFC fans expecting the current club franchise to receive compensation payments as a result of this criminal case.

View Comment

Paradisebhoy

ParadisebhoyPosted on9:13 pm - Jan 6, 2016


Homunculus 6th January 2016 at 8:45 pm
” That can be varied later, if further assets are discovered, but only up to the limit of his benefit.”
Is it not  the case that under POCA the amount recovered can actually be more than the amount illegally obtained ?
If it can be proved that the money obtained was used as “Seed Corn ” for other activities ?

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on9:19 pm - Jan 6, 2016


Paradisebhoy 6th January 2016 at 9:13 pm
=============================

Specifically in relation to confiscation of the proceeds of criminal conduct the amount is the benefit or the realiseable value of assets, whichever is less.

You may be thinking of the cash seizure provisions, which as it suggests is the way in which cash which is the proceeds of criminal conduct, or is to be used in criminal conduct, can be confiscated.

View Comment

tony

tonyPosted on9:26 pm - Jan 6, 2016


Paradisebhoy
as in,if i stole £10 put it on a horse and won £90,they would want to recover the £90?..excuse my ignorance on this,just trying to understand it all

View Comment

Avatar

James DolemanPosted on9:39 pm - Jan 6, 2016


Quick update on publishing the indictment

https://rangersfraudcase.wordpress.com/2016/01/06/indictment-update/

View Comment

Avatar

torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958)Posted on9:48 pm - Jan 6, 2016


Allyjambo 6th January 2016 at 8:17 pm #It appears the two ‘starletts’ have signed 4 year contracts with TRFC! That’s pre-contracts, so not adding to the wage bill at this time. It would appear that Stanley from Accrington has requested a fee for their early release…or their agent insisted that they be paid for playing
==========================
There’s more.
Andy Newport(AP)is reporting that young Mr Windass has a £3.5m release clause in his contract.21

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on9:49 pm - Jan 6, 2016


James Doleman 6th January 2016 at 9:39 pm #
Quick update on publishing the indictment
https://rangersfraudcase.wordpress.com/2016/01/06/indictment-update/
============================
Thanks for the heads up re disclosing the full text of the document. It is a warning to us all. 

However, I don’t think the guidance you received fits in with some of the fine detail of the charges being published and the subsequent spin being placed on elements of them by the SMSM.

View Comment

Paradisebhoy

ParadisebhoyPosted on9:53 pm - Jan 6, 2016


Homunculus , Tony .
I know this is trying to simplify a very complex situation . But this is an example of the Police proving that someone stole £18,869.58 but confiscating £1,566,911. This was before POCA but the principle still exists .

A person was caught stealing petrol. After the investigating officer approached the FIU for advice, a financial enquiry revealed that there were obvious discrepancies between the person’s legitimate income and their general lifestyle. An investigation led to a conviction for four offences of stealing petrol worth £219.58, and one offence of the theft of a Porsche motor car. The person had received social security benefits but was living in a luxury barn conversion. They had a lavish lifestyle and investments in Switzerland. It appeared that the person was living off the proceeds of crime. 
The person would not provide any realistic explanation for their wealth and the financial investigation revealed no signs of legitimate funds to substantiate this wealth. Confiscation proceedings were pursued by the prosecution, resulting in two separate confiscation orders. With regards to the theft of the Porsche motor car, a confiscation order was imposed in the sum of £18,650.
Four offences of theft of petrol on separate occasions were sufficient to trigger criminal lifestyle assumptions under the Criminal Justice Act 1998 (CJA). Assumptions were, therefore, made about all the person’s unexplained assets. Following a full confiscation hearing, the court imposed an order confiscating a total of £1,566,911 from the person.
It should be noted that the dates when the offences were committed were prior to the inception of POCA. The confiscation legislation that applied was under the CJA. If POCA had applied, the offences would still have triggered the application of criminal lifestyle assumptions. “

View Comment

tykebhoy

tykebhoyPosted on9:57 pm - Jan 6, 2016


A question for James if he is still looking in and it doesn’t break the restrictions on the indictment.  Was the Albion car park your own embellishment on the Duff and Phelps breakdown of the sale price of RFC assets?  As I understood it the Car Park was in third part ownership until Mr Charles bought it with IPO money or is my memory hazy on this?

View Comment

Avatar

James DolemanPosted on10:06 pm - Jan 6, 2016


The Albion car park figure is in the indictment.

I try to avoid “embellishing” things. 

🙂

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on10:08 pm - Jan 6, 2016


Paradisebhoy 6th January 2016 at 9:53 pm
=============================

Yes, that is criminal lifestyle, which allows certain assumptions to be made. As opposed to particular criminal conduct, which relates to a one-off offence.

The assumptions are, in simple terms, that if you live life a certain way and that involves ongoing crime then any money you cannot account for comes from that crime. These assumptions can only be made once the person is found guilty of the criminal conduct.

In particular criminal conduct the confiscation order can be the indicted amount (the benefit) or the realiseable value of the assets, whichever is less.

In criminal lifestyle cases the confiscation order can be the determined benefit (calculated based on what the person has spent minus what they have earned) or the realiseable value of the assets, whichever is less.

It is not the same as stealing £10 and gambling it and winning £90.

View Comment

Paradisebhoy

ParadisebhoyPosted on10:13 pm - Jan 6, 2016


Cheers Homunculus , that makes it much clearer .

View Comment

Comments are closed.