Jump to content


Photo
* * * - - 3 votes

Banker arrested on bribery charges (merged)


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
463 replies to this topic

#201 Gareth

Gareth
  • RC Forum Host

  • 10,683 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 22 July 2011 - 15:35

So according to Ecclestone, his lawyers advised that: cost of defending a HMRC tax claim* > $44m? Anyone else find that tough to swallow?

*That's just the cost of defending it. According to Ecclestone, he would definitely have won the claim (which, of course, he has to say because a defence of "cost of valid HMRC claim > $44m" would just land him in hot water with HMRC).

Advertisement

#202 ArtShelley

ArtShelley
  • Member

  • 3,560 posts
  • Joined: December 10

Posted 22 July 2011 - 16:05

So according to Ecclestone, his lawyers advised that: cost of defending a HMRC tax claim* > $44m? Anyone else find that tough to swallow?

*That's just the cost of defending it. According to Ecclestone, he would definitely have won the claim (which, of course, he has to say because a defence of "cost of valid HMRC claim > $44m" would just land him in hot water with HMRC).


I don't think even Bernie himself expects anyone to believe that.

#203 Sakae

Sakae
  • Member

  • 19,155 posts
  • Joined: December 03

Posted 22 July 2011 - 16:09

Well, we have at least one tax expert on this BB who can form a qualified opinion about BE' explanation...

#204 TriumphST

TriumphST
  • Member

  • 214 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 22 July 2011 - 19:46

So according to Ecclestone, his lawyers advised that: cost of defending a HMRC tax claim* > $44m? Anyone else find that tough to swallow?

*That's just the cost of defending it. According to Ecclestone, he would definitely have won the claim (which, of course, he has to say because a defence of "cost of valid HMRC claim > $44m" would just land him in hot water with HMRC).


As I understand it, any vehicle or plan relating to tax liability requires only a correspondence to the inspector detailing the proposal, bearing in mind there would certainly have been counsel's opinion on the scheme already sought, and it will be agreed or denied in writing, really quite simple and dispenses with uncertainty and fear of HMRC action and penalty. Had the error occurred by oversight there may be no penalty but were this a true explanation by Ecclestone then its still there for HMRC to look into.

Of course if they catch you because you deliberately entered upon a course of action intended to evade you are as they colloquially put it, in deepish dudu.

In such cases penalties can be 100% of and in addition to the tax due. One would not have thought Ecclestone, as astute as he's supposed to be, would have been in such a position, there again he was a second hand car dealer, which along with greengrocers have a certain reputation. His current explanation is far fetched but most see it as a red herring and one suspects this whole saga centres upon the discounted rate CVC paid BayernLB.

Wonder if he's on public show at the weekend? Maybe as another wag said he'll contemplate the Ernst Saunders defence when/if charged.

Edit: Apparently he made it there.

Edited by TriumphST, 22 July 2011 - 20:29.


#205 TriumphST

TriumphST
  • Member

  • 214 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 18 August 2011 - 20:37

It appears the circling sharks have begun to close in on Ecclestone et al.

A report in the FT states a German media group has filed a multi-million dollar lawsuit against Bernie Ecclestone and some of his cronies in the London High Court. Ecclestone; his then lawyer Stephen Mullens; Bambino Holdings, a trust of the Ecclestone family; and Gerhard Gribkowsky are all named in the action. What's the betting the Kirch estate won't be next?

Strangely the great Sylt hasn't managed to break the news before the FT, wonder why not?

I dont suppose this will be the worst of the little fella's troubles this year.

Edited by TriumphST, 18 August 2011 - 21:04.


#206 BRG

BRG
  • Member

  • 11,069 posts
  • Joined: September 99

Posted 18 August 2011 - 22:55

Bernie has just unloaded his holding in Queen's Park Rangers Football Club, to some Malaysian mug. Needs the cash for his legal fees, perhaps?

#207 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 55,902 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 18 August 2011 - 23:17

It appears the circling sharks have begun to close in on Ecclestone et al.

A report in the FT states a German media group has filed a multi-million dollar lawsuit against Bernie Ecclestone and some of his cronies in the London High Court. Ecclestone; his then lawyer Stephen Mullens; Bambino Holdings, a trust of the Ecclestone family; and Gerhard Gribkowsky are all named in the action. What's the betting the Kirch estate won't be next?

Strangely the great Sylt hasn't managed to break the news before the FT, wonder why not?

I dont suppose this will be the worst of the little fella's troubles this year.


The lawsuit is over.... ?

#208 TriumphST

TriumphST
  • Member

  • 214 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 19 August 2011 - 09:39

The lawsuit is over.... ?


I understand, over their claim they failed to maximise their investment (by $100m apparently) in Kirch Media's F1 holding.
Due to the corruption of Gribkowsky by Ecclestone in 05/06 which resulted in the discounted sale of the F1 commercial rights to CVC.

#209 kar

kar
  • Member

  • 10,304 posts
  • Joined: January 06

Posted 19 August 2011 - 09:42

Bernie has just unloaded his holding in Queen's Park Rangers Football Club, to some Malaysian mug. Needs the cash for his legal fees, perhaps?


More like wants to reduce his holdings in the UK that can be taken away.

#210 WhiteBlue

WhiteBlue
  • Member

  • 2,135 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 19 August 2011 - 17:16

I wonder how long it will take the pressure from American pension funds to build in order to make CVC drop the crook. Certainly these kind of investors are very unhappy with shady deals and negative publicity.

#211 TriumphST

TriumphST
  • Member

  • 214 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 20 August 2011 - 08:30

I wonder how long it will take the pressure from American pension funds to build in order to make CVC drop the crook. Certainly these kind of investors are very unhappy with shady deals and negative publicity.


You have to bear in mind for Ecclestone to benefit CVC would have to collude, and so as culpable as Ecclestone. Though that collusion may have been wrapped up as some innocent looking share incentive deal for achieving a below cost purchase, they certainly would/should have had their suspicions given the extraordinary P/E ratio that something was amiss.

Certainly the main body of CVC F1 fund investors won't have been privy to any shenanigans and have their money tied up long term without any control, but while some complain about the ethics their counterparts see any business behaviour as justifiable as long as returns are maintained.

In essence I wouldn't rely on too many of these putting ethics before profit anytime soon. Wasn't too long ago the CoE were found to be investing in the armaments industry while preaching peace and love.

Certainly what's required is CVC itself or Ecclestone to come clean but neither will be keen on openings the books in relation to any Ecclestone deal! For supposedly smart people they fool themselves into believing any conspiracy that involves more then one person can remain secret.
They ought to examine carefully just what's occurring to another billionaire who thought he was above the law, or that business should be considered amoral.

Edited by TriumphST, 20 August 2011 - 09:27.


#212 weston

weston
  • Member

  • 369 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 20 August 2011 - 23:33

Bernie has just unloaded his holding in Queen's Park Rangers Football Club, to some Malaysian mug. Needs the cash for his legal fees, perhaps?


/OFF You don't like Tony Fernandes, do you? /ON
Bernie is likely unloading his UK interests.

#213 clipper

clipper
  • Member

  • 812 posts
  • Joined: January 02

Posted 21 August 2011 - 01:10

/OFF You don't like Tony Fernandes, do you? /ON
Bernie is likely unloading his UK interests.



or he has just made himself a tidy profit from initially buying QPR while in the lower leagues, and selling when in the premier league

he bought in back in 2007 for 14m and was reported to want 100m to sell. Haven't seen the sale figure reported, but I would guess Fernandes bought it for somewhere in the region of 75-90m??



#214 BRG

BRG
  • Member

  • 11,069 posts
  • Joined: September 99

Posted 21 August 2011 - 18:02

or he has just made himself a tidy profit from initially buying QPR while in the lower leagues, and selling when in the premier league

he bought in back in 2007 for 14m and was reported to want 100m to sell. Haven't seen the sale figure reported, but I would guess Fernandes bought it for somewhere in the region of 75-90m??

Mug, as I said earlier.

#215 Felix

Felix
  • Member

  • 704 posts
  • Joined: December 03

Posted 12 September 2011 - 09:52

It appears the circling sharks have begun to close in on Ecclestone et al.

A report in the FT states a German media group has filed a multi-million dollar lawsuit against Bernie Ecclestone and some of his cronies in the London High Court. Ecclestone; his then lawyer Stephen Mullens; Bambino Holdings, a trust of the Ecclestone family; and Gerhard Gribkowsky are all named in the action. What's the betting the Kirch estate won't be next?

Strangely the great Sylt hasn't managed to break the news before the FT, wonder why not?

I dont suppose this will be the worst of the little fella's troubles this year.


According to Reuters and others Mullens has resigned from the boards of seven FOM companies; (not so) strange that Sylt has kept that under wraps, too... After all, its not as though the guy can plead distraction by the grand prix: he wouldn't even know the front of an F1 car from its exhaust. Here's the piece:

Timing is extremely interesting: CVC shareholder meeting this week.

Motor racing-Business partner to F1's Ecclestone quits

LONDON, Sept 11 | Sun Sep 11, 2011 6:41am EDT
(Reuters) - Stephen Mullens, the long-time business partner and legal adviser to Bernie Ecclestone, has severed all ties with Formula One amid an ongoing legal battle over the 2005 sale of the sport, the Sunday Times reported.

No one at Formula One Management was immediately available to comment.

The newspaper, without giving many details, said Mullens had resigned from seven companies which administer the sport's commercial affairs.

Ecclestone is at the centre of an investigation in Germany, however the Formula One supremo told reporters in July that he was not concerned about his position.

He has confirmed making a payment to a former Germany banker who has since been charged with breach of trust and tax evasion.

Former Bayern LB banker Gerhard Gribkowsky was arrested in January in relation to the 2006 sale of his bank's 48 percent stake in Formula One to current rights holders CVC and alleged payments to him of $50 million. (Reporting by Kate Holton; additional reporting by Alan Baldwin, editing by Pritha Sarkar)


#216 TriumphST

TriumphST
  • Member

  • 214 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 27 September 2011 - 18:20

Well at long last a German Judge has decided Gribkowsky has a case to answer and according to the FT the case will begin on the 24th October.

Ecclestone will apparently be called the following month, so with a bit of luck the whole sordid story will be aired and may throw some light on the murky underbelly of F1 finances. Hopefully the reason for the $50m Ecclestone payment to Gribkowsky will emerge along with Ecclestone's arrangement with CVC regarding his CVC shareholding and it's dependancy on the negotiated price paid for the 75% of SLEC holdings owned by the Bank's.


Edited by TriumphST, 27 September 2011 - 20:27.


#217 jjcale

jjcale
  • Member

  • 6,739 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 27 September 2011 - 18:48

Hopefully the reason for the $50m Ecclestone payment to Gribkowsky will emerge ....


I'm surprised nothing more has come of this... If the germans believe its a bribe they should be taking action [against Ecclestone]... if they believe its extortion they should be taking action.


along with Ecclestone's arrangement with CVC regarding his CVC shareholding and it's dependancy on the negotiated price paid for the 75% of SLEC holdings owned by the Bank's.


... dont hold your breath on that one.

Edited by jjcale, 27 September 2011 - 18:52.


#218 rabbitleader

rabbitleader
  • Member

  • 1,032 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 27 September 2011 - 18:50

[quote name='jjcale' date='Sep 27 2011, 19:48' post='5308938']
I'm surprised nothing more has come of this... If the germans believe its a bribe they should be taking action... if they believe its extortion they should be taking action.


They are probably still looking for the killer piece of evidence linking the biggest fish...rather than risking a half baked prosecution attempt that has a 50:50 chance of succeeeding.

#219 TriumphST

TriumphST
  • Member

  • 214 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 27 September 2011 - 19:31

I'm surprised nothing more has come of this... If the germans believe its a bribe they should be taking action [against Ecclestone]... if they believe its extortion they should be taking action.




... dont hold your breath on that one.


Well who thought NI would capitulate, but the weak link is CVC and not Ecclestone and should they be called and questioned along with Stephen Mullens whose departure from every board associated with F1 and Ecclestone has never been explained, we may see Ecclestone's trust at the mercy of the HM Revenue & Customs never mind the German Prosecutors.

I suspect he may be on a lose lose situation and that's totally ignoring the $100m lawsuit pending. Now I appreciate $100m is peanuts to F1, but how many more claims and lawsuits are waiting in the wings?

Advertisement

#220 rabbitleader

rabbitleader
  • Member

  • 1,032 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 27 September 2011 - 19:33

Well who thought NI would capitulate, but the weak link is CVC and not Ecclestone and should they be called and questioned along with Stephen Mullens whose departure from every board associated with F1 and Ecclestone has never been explained, we may see Ecclestone's trust at the mercy of the HM Revenue & Customs never mind the German Prosecutors.

I suspect he may be on a lose lose situation and that's totally ignoring the $100m lawsuit pending. Now I appreciate $100m is peanuts to F1, but how many more claims and lawsuits are waiting in the wings?


$100m in F1 has a familiar ring about it!

#221 Wi000

Wi000
  • Member

  • 1,163 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 27 September 2011 - 19:46

Now I appreciate $100m is peanuts to F1, but how many more claims and lawsuits are waiting in the wings?

Yep $100m is nothing to Bernie, he buys houses for his kids that cost that much. :rotfl:

#222 TriumphST

TriumphST
  • Member

  • 214 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 06 October 2011 - 14:19

Yep $100m is nothing to Bernie, he buys houses for his kids that cost that much. :rotfl:


Right enough, that he could splash out nearly a million for the BEPea's on top of Clapton for a band for one of them was obscene enough.

Wonder how he feels about being confirmed as a witness in the Gribkowsky trial now that Gribkowsky's accused amongst other things of accepting a bribe, (note the charge relates to a bribe, with no mention of blackmail other then from Ecclestone) with the money traced and originating from Ecclestone.

One can speculate if being party to bribery as Ecclestone would be, why he's not in the dock even at this stage. Maybe once the specialist German Judges (up to five apparently) have finished questioning him and CVC, that's where he'll find himself?

Edited by TriumphST, 06 October 2011 - 17:58.


#223 TriumphST

TriumphST
  • Member

  • 214 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 06 November 2011 - 19:45

It's that time again, Ecclestone's due in the Bavarian court on the 9th/10th November, for questioning relating to the bribery of Gribkowsky.

While he maintain's his innocence of bribery one wonders if he's prepared to add perjury to the charge sheet should Gribkowsky be found guilty, interestingly according to his lawyer Mr Sven Thomas (in The Telegraph), Ecclestone having been very specific on the point that the payments were in response to Gribkowsk's blackmail threat, now he appears less certain of his initial description, his lawyer now describe's the reason as;

“You could say Bernie has been the victim here. There was a hidden threat, pressure — a sort of shakedown,” (One assumes if the threat was hidden then Ecclestone was not aware of it, so why pay $50m?).

The change of tack is convenient for Ecclestone because Gribkowsky is sticking to his guns that the payment was for consultancy fees, although it appears Gribkowsky can't substantiate that (no worksheet, contract etc), but there again Ecclestone can't substantiate the blackmail threat which now appears to have been consigned to the realms of fantasy anyway. Then it boil's down to 'his word against mine', thing is, were you Ecclestone would you rely on a court taking your word over even Gribkowsky's?


But Ecclestone's troubles aren't ending there, it's been reported HMRC are to investigate the £27m payments made by Ecclestone with the UK's Attorney General (who runs the Serious Fraud Office) also involved. This has serious implications for Ecclestone, Bambino and those appointed Trustees.
There is also the pending High Court case brought by Constantin Medien (former part owner) for $100m in relation to the same case. Worst case scenario for Ecclestone is a guilty verdict in the Gribkowsky case, one would have to think that would result in a bribery charge against Ecclestone and that in turn would trigger a host of legal actions by the other players involved in the sale of F1

Seemingly after 50 years of getting away with it all the 'perfect storm' thats brewing is threatening his whole empire.

On being asked for his response Ecclestone apparently replied “Do you know the reputation of the people involved in the case?”. Well no Mr Ecclestone not all of them, but we do know one, and his reputation we know all too well.

The one question I'd hope to have an answer to from the questioning of CVC is, who owns F1. We know CVC own almost 60% and minor shareholders including Bambino (9%), Ecclestone (5%) take it to 75%. But who owns the remaining 25%?

Finally reporting on this trial has been thin on the ground in the UK (German isn't my strong point) and I wonder if press coverage of the trial will improve once Ecclestone is on the stand?

#224 Fastcake

Fastcake
  • Member

  • 5,663 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 06 November 2011 - 20:30

The one question I'd hope to have an answer to from the questioning of CVC is, who owns F1. We know CVC own almost 60% and minor shareholders including Bambino (9%), Ecclestone (5%) take it to 75%. But who owns the remaining 25%?

Finally reporting on this trial has been thin on the ground in the UK (German isn't my strong point) and I wonder if press coverage of the trial will improve once Ecclestone is on the stand?


If you're interested in the ownership Saward posted an approximation of the ultimate owners and the company structure (or as much as he could gather) some months back.

I imagine there hasn't been much press coverage because there hasn't been much to report. After the initial revelations and court action it's just been sitting around waiting for some big news.

Gribkowsky sounds rather screwed whatever happens, he's in possession of a large amount of money that isn't properly accounted for, there is going to be more questions surrounding the sale. There was certainly some playing with figures to make a few people a large amount of money, however I fully expect Bernie to come out of this as nothing more than a bystander.

#225 scheivlak

scheivlak
  • Member

  • 10,819 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 06 November 2011 - 21:32

There was certainly some playing with figures to make a few people a large amount of money, however I fully expect Bernie to come out of this as nothing more than a bystander.

I wouldn't be too sure of that, but we'll see.
It's clear that the Germans are taking this pretty seriously and keep their cards close to their chest.

#226 wrighty

wrighty
  • Member

  • 3,574 posts
  • Joined: November 06

Posted 09 November 2011 - 10:15

Two articles in todays Telegraph with regard to the ongoing case.....the first claiming that papers suggest that Bernie 'lied about the bribe' (yes i know, i'm shocked too) and another with Bernie in bullish mood with regard to the Tax Office and a possible investigation into his affairs on the back of his testimony this week

#227 StefK

StefK
  • Member

  • 68 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 09 November 2011 - 13:12

@BBCtimfranks worth reading on twitter

#228 StefK

StefK
  • Member

  • 68 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 09 November 2011 - 13:13

BE: "I feared tax bill of more than 2 billion pounds"

#229 Buttoneer

Buttoneer
  • RC Forum Admin

  • 15,883 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 09 November 2011 - 23:28

UK reporting has indeed improved with the entrance of the ringmaster.

Grauniad

There was something in the Indy a few weeks back too, but not worth a link.

#230 One

One
  • Member

  • 6,527 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 09 November 2011 - 23:53

With no defence, thinking about what Formula One may like today with no Bernie, makes me think if there are any more of guys who are put into question. It is a mater of Jurisdiction and prudence tho... This is something that all know about making business... but anything with money and still say that 'no, money can't buy m love'...

#231 TriumphST

TriumphST
  • Member

  • 214 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 10 November 2011 - 15:19

According to the FT,

"Details that emerged in court on Thursday suggest Mr Gribkowsky contacted Mr Ecclestone shortly before Mr Gribkowsky’s arrest in January this year.
In a handwritten note that started “Dear Bernie,” Mr Gribkowsky said a newspaper was asking questions about his finances and that Mr Ecclestone might also face questions. “A London lawyer will soon contact you discreetly,” Mr Gribkowsky wrote, the court was told. Mr Ecclestone denied anyone had subsequently contacted him."

After his masterful display yesterday it appears the court may be just getting serious?


#232 weareracing

weareracing
  • Member

  • 885 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 11 November 2011 - 00:28

So is Bernie losing the plot?
His defence seems to be that making the payment was cheaper than the cost of meeting the required payments of tax under UK law ?
And he makes an Internationally reported statement to the affect that he was seeking tax avoidance in the UK?
Good Morning HMRC ?
Which golden balls will be leading an investigattion into the personal taxation of one Bernard Ecclestone ?

#233 tweiss

tweiss
  • Member

  • 379 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 11 November 2011 - 12:47

This is so funny...Bernie "shaken down".... I don't know why...but I can't stop laughing.... the biggest Shyster in the world gets shaken down...

http://en.espnf1.com...tory/63877.html

#234 HP

HP
  • Member

  • 14,112 posts
  • Joined: October 99

Posted 11 November 2011 - 14:27

I wonder what will happen to Flavio Briatore as he had also his part to play in this plot.

http://www.autosport...rt.php/id/96047

The banning of Briatore from F1 should now be investigated a bit closer.

Edited by HP, 11 November 2011 - 14:27.


#235 jjcale

jjcale
  • Member

  • 6,739 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 11 November 2011 - 15:00

BE: "I feared tax bill of more than 2 billion pounds"


... I dont know anything .. but the web that he has woven over the years is more complicated that would be needed for just avoiding tax.. its not that hard... that's all I have to say.

#236 wrighty

wrighty
  • Member

  • 3,574 posts
  • Joined: November 06

Posted 11 November 2011 - 16:30

So is Bernie losing the plot?
His defence seems to be that making the payment was cheaper than the cost of meeting the required payments of tax under UK law ?
And he makes an Internationally reported statement to the affect that he was seeking tax avoidance in the UK?
Good Morning HMRC ?
Which golden balls will be leading an investigattion into the personal taxation of one Bernard Ecclestone ?


see, that's the bit that struck me as well....if he says (hey, he said) that the payments were to avoid UK taxation then he invites the HMRC to get the big guns out, but if he says to them 'oh well i just said that' then he's into a perjury claim in the German courts as a witness in a criminal case non?
I'm starting to wonder whether he's into a terminal decline in health and is starting to not give a sh1t.....all in all i don't think it does him any favours that Slavica spent £12m (yeah that's million) on Petra's wedding without telling him and he didn't notice until afterwards....(or would we just accuse him of being an avaricious penny-pinching tw@ if he did? who knows, obscenity comes in so many forms these days...)

#237 TriumphST

TriumphST
  • Member

  • 214 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 17 November 2011 - 14:09

Seemingly Mullens failed to testify on Tuesday (15th Nov) because he was afraid he'd incriminate himself, wise move in the circumstances.

Now, casting back to just last week (9/10th Nov) when Ecclestone said on oath he paid £8m for a threat that was never made and Mullens earlier statement from when he was talking to the Prosacutor that was read out in court he stated the Bambino Trust contribution was paid because according to Mullens, Mrs Ecclestone (II) described Gribkowsky as "dangerous" and the trust "should be benevolent to him" consequently they too would pay Gribkowsky though this time it would be £19m, again a figure that was neither quantified nor requested by Gribkowsky.

Fast forward and the production (Wed 16th Nov?) by the German Prosecutor of property consultancy contracts between Bambino and Grinkowsky which they allege were a front for bribery payments. Interestingly during all this time (from Jan 11) neither Ecclestone nor Mullens mentions anything about them (there again Ecclestone was busy at the time denying any payments whatever to Gribkowsky), little wonder Mullens sharp mind was attuned to what line of questioning the Prosecutor would follow once he (Mullens ) was under oath and wisely opted to stay away.

Today we have a report in the Independent on Ecclestone's response to the 'Bambino consultancy contracts' and in which he differentiates between his payment of £8m (for blackmail) and the Bambino Trust £19m payment to Gribkowsky, this is no longer because Gribkowsky was considered "dangerous" but for 'property consultancy work'. Just when can Ecclestone be believed, you would have thought all of the time when a perjury charge was a consequence though perhaps not with Ecclestone.

The Independent
'He reiterated this to The Independent but added that the trust paid its portion of the money because "the trust had a deal with Gribkowsky to advise on property deals and did some property deals that he proposed"...'
This wasn't what he said when justifying the payments under oath last week.
He's now dropped Bambino (Mullens and Argand) in the firing line and they will have to provide the necessary paperwork to support his assertion, not to do so will be damming as would the method on how payments were made, if we are to assume all was legal and above board.

You have to admit Ecclestone can think on his feet, his problem is he's always reacting to what the German Prosecutor produces and every day something new crop's up and Ecclestone's constantly on the back foot. His testimony look's more implausible and inaccurate day by day and Ecclestone's habit of not minuting meetings isn't helping, but he's also discovering there's truth in the adage 'Oh the tangled web we weave....'. and the lie is impossible to maintain without some supporting documentation. Wheather Ecclestone is fully aware of the seriousness of his predickment is debatable, certainly Mullens does otherwise why seek to distance himself from everything tainted by Ecclestone, and CVC must be squirming watching their investment going down the pan.

Can't really help but think Gribkowsky's the astute one here and Ecclestone's been too clever by half. Discovering for the first time that he's not in control and vulnerable to losing it all once HMRC begin to get really interested and there's too much going on in Germany for them not to. Fully expect Ecclestone back in the witness chair before long (or emulate Mullens stay at home policy).

Edited by TriumphST, 17 November 2011 - 19:27.


#238 Amphicar

Amphicar
  • Member

  • 1,826 posts
  • Joined: December 10

Posted 17 November 2011 - 18:59

Can't really help but think Gribkowsky's the astute one here and Ecclestone's been too clever by half. Discovering for the first time that he's not in control and vulnerable to losing it all once HMRC begin to get really interested and there's too much going on in Germany for them not to. Fully expect Ecclestone back in the witness chair before long (or emulate Mullens stay at home policy).

I wouldn't be surprised if Bernie were to contract a sudden onset of Ernest Saunders Syndrome (ESS), which will prevent him testifying further in either the German case or any subsequent HMRC proceedings. Of course the key characteristic of ESS is that the removal of the threat of legal sanctions immediately brings on a sudden and total recovery from symptoms that were previously deemed incurable and irreversible.

#239 TriumphST

TriumphST
  • Member

  • 214 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 18 November 2011 - 09:02

I wouldn't be surprised if Bernie were to contract a sudden onset of Ernest Saunders Syndrome (ESS), which will prevent him testifying further in either the German case or any subsequent HMRC proceedings. Of course the key characteristic of ESS is that the removal of the threat of legal sanctions immediately brings on a sudden and total recovery from symptoms that were previously deemed incurable and irreversible.



He'd better contract it quickly because according to the FT the Serious Fraud Office are getting interested in the affair.

Advertisement

#240 rolf123

rolf123
  • Member

  • 2,331 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 21 December 2011 - 10:37

Payments by F1's Ecclestone were a bribe, judge rules
Multi-million pound payments made by Formula 1 boss Bernie Ecclestone relating to the sale of the sport in 2005 amount to a "bribe" according to a High Court judge.

http://www.telegraph...udge-rules.html

#241 Wi000

Wi000
  • Member

  • 1,163 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 21 December 2011 - 11:11

Payments by F1's Ecclestone were a bribe, judge rules
Multi-million pound payments made by Formula 1 boss Bernie Ecclestone relating to the sale of the sport in 2005 amount to a "bribe" according to a High Court judge.

http://www.telegraph...udge-rules.html

Uhh I see no ruling but just a question: 'When this was put to Justice Vos on Tuesday he replied: "Isn't that a bribe"?' :confused:

#242 The Ragged Edge

The Ragged Edge
  • Member

  • 4,435 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 21 December 2011 - 11:35

Payments by F1's Ecclestone were a bribe, judge rules
Multi-million pound payments made by Formula 1 boss Bernie Ecclestone relating to the sale of the sport in 2005 amount to a "bribe" according to a High Court judge.

http://www.telegraph...udge-rules.html


I wrote this when information was sketchy and leaked in dribs and drabs regarding Bernie dealings with Gribkowsky's.

Cases like this are so simple. Who has the most to gain, from this dodgy banker selling the shares? Who sought the shares? How much were the shares undervalued? Is it less or more than the bankers consultancy fee? What is the bankers standing in his profession? Which company gave him the consultancy role? Is the company CVC or a subsidiary of CVC? Is a $50 million consultancy fee, the norm for a banker of his standing? IMO it's far from rocket science to work out if this deal was above board or bent. Alas I doubt he'll spend much time in open prison, if any at all. I should have been a banker. :cry:


and this

Bernie is mega crooked. In cases like this, all you have to do is follow the money. If Bernies get convicted for this crime, it will finally shut up those fools who believe Bernie is a legitimate business man, with the ethics of mother Teresa. :lol:


and this

Concrete evidence' in Ecclestone bribery claims"? If this claim is accurate, Bernie will be in trouble. The German authorities have traced the money. They know which fronts the money was placed in. They know where the money originated. A $50 million consultancy fee for a banker of his standing, with no previous consultancy history or business established is so outside the norm, it leaves little imagination what the payment was really for.


Anybody who displayed even a modicum of objectiveness, would have realised Bernie was guilty. This much was obvious to many people almost a year ago. Bernies defense was so pathetic, the judge should give him an extra year for taking the p1$$ in his court. :lol: Bernie's been caught bang to rights and should now face the full wrath of the legal system. Bribery is a serious charge and in this case Bernies bribery money defrauded others, so this crime was not without victims. I had no empathy for him when he got robbed/mugged and I have even less now the old b@stard has been exposed without question regarding the ethics of his business dealings. His £300 million pound friendship payment to Mosley is all one needed to look at, in order to know exactly what kind of man Bernie is. :down:

#243 Tonka

Tonka
  • Member

  • 834 posts
  • Joined: November 11

Posted 21 December 2011 - 15:52

The UK have a new Bribery Act. In particular it's got a section covering bribes given to foreigners

http://www.bbc.co.uk...siness-13977221

The new Bribery Act, which came into force on 1 July, made it illegal to offer or receive bribes, and to fail to prevent bribery.
Before the new law, similar regulations dated back to 1906 but the Bribery Act also covers bribing a foreign public official and a corporate offence of failing to stop a bribe on behalf of your organisation



Edited by Tonka, 21 December 2011 - 15:54.


#244 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 55,902 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 21 December 2011 - 18:45

But is the bribe connected to the sale? I thought it was over tax stuff and that the banks said the fee F1 was sold for was fair.

#245 BRG

BRG
  • Member

  • 11,069 posts
  • Joined: September 99

Posted 21 December 2011 - 21:05

...the banks said the fee F1 was sold for was fair.

I am not sure that we should trust the judgement of banks about what is fair, given how they have screwed the whole world recently.

Edited by BRG, 21 December 2011 - 21:05.


#246 TriumphST

TriumphST
  • Member

  • 214 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 25 December 2011 - 18:47

I am not sure that we should trust the judgement of banks about what is fair, given how they have screwed the whole world recently.


Have to agree, they previously state they were totally ignorant of the sport, yet they fail to appoint an independent consultants to value a business that makes $1b profit yearly, before prize money disbursements. And in which they sell their 47%stake for $765m net. Beggars belief that a yield of 33% after disbursements which would have repaid their investments at the latest in 3-years (at $250m/annum) should have gone unnoticed by even a simpleton.

The question that 'The Ragged Edge' raises is one we all raise, however it's not our being sure that Bernie's in this up to his neck but being able to prove the matter beyond reasonable doubt so he can be put away and should Gribkowsky go down in February, Ecclestone will surely follow whether in Germany or here in the UK.

What's unacceptable is the F1 community and by that I mean the F1 press, are incapable through fear I suppose, of objectively reporting on the issue. There isn't one reporter prepared to stick their neck out and follow up on the Munich proceedings, if thats a result of budget constraints fine but many bloggers trading on their reputations as F1 insiders are keeping resolutely stum until I suppose Ecclestone either gets off or is incarcerated at which point everyone and their grandmother making a buck from F1 will crawl out of the woodwork with the obligatory 'Oh I could have told you that' yeah well what stopped you?

My prediction many months ago was NI/ NotW would be held accountable and so would Ecclestone many said neither would happen but the former has and I fully expect Ecclestone and his cohorts (that includes Mosley) to follow suit. I now await the next milestone, the Grigkowsky verdict then as predicted the litigation to strip Ecclestone of everything he has, including his trusts, Constantin Median is but the first.

Edited by TriumphST, 25 December 2011 - 20:33.


#247 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 55,902 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 25 December 2011 - 21:26

Erm, if you're going to attack the judgement of the banks you have to be accurate with the numbers. F1 does not make a profit of a billion. The income is 1bil, before they give roughly half away(costs) and before costs associated with running and televising the sport. The actual profit for a potential buyer is going to be 20-30% and a lot of that will go towards paying the loan you took out to buy the series.

#248 TriumphST

TriumphST
  • Member

  • 214 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 25 December 2011 - 23:05

Erm, if you're going to attack the judgement of the banks you have to be accurate with the numbers. F1 does not make a profit of a billion. The income is 1bil, before they give roughly half away(costs) and before costs associated with running and televising the sport. The actual profit for a potential buyer is going to be 20-30% and a lot of that will go towards paying the loan you took out to buy the series.



Thank you for pointing out that error Ross. However I think you're confusing turnover with profit. The profit before prize money is $1b, you also seem to suggest the banks have interest charges to service, have you any idea how investment banks operate? You also suggest F1 generates $200-300m profit a year on a income (turnover) of $1b, after paying the teams $500m in prize-money never mind transportation and all the other costs involved, are you actually serious?

Do read my reply again. The figures allow for disbursements (prize-money) which only later reached 50% of the profit which would have been $500m or thereabouts. On which basis my figures albeit rough are based, are as stated, and substantially accurate i.e BayernLB could have looked to recoup 47% of $500m retained profit annually, how they handled the tax liability is open to question and possibly managed to completely negated any liability altogether.

NB. Merry Xmas all..

Edited by TriumphST, 25 December 2011 - 23:26.


#249 Jackman

Jackman
  • Member

  • 12,568 posts
  • Joined: August 00

Posted 25 December 2011 - 23:48

I suspect you're mistaking turnover for profit. There is no way that F1 makes $1bn profit a year, even with the decline in the dollar.

#250 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 55,902 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 26 December 2011 - 02:26

Even Bernie isn't so magical to have a profit equal to his turnover.