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

#401 Tommorris747

Tommorris747
  • Member

  • 145 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 29 September 2012 - 19:20

I was only explaining "Mustang Sally" what it's all about now. And now it's about whether the prosecution will charge Bernie or not, as the SZ explains.


OK. Slightly misleading to say that is the prosecution when there hasn't been any legal action but I see what you were saying.

You mean that would be the charge if the prosecutors take legal action. Time will tell if the SZ is right and I for one will quite openly eat my eat right here if Ecclestone is ever arrested.

Advertisement

#402 scheivlak

scheivlak
  • Member

  • 11,180 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 29 September 2012 - 19:23

OK. Slightly misleading to say that is the prosecution when there hasn't been any legal action but I see what you were saying.

You mean that would be the charge if the prosecutors take legal action. Time will tell if the SZ is right and I for one will quite openly eat my eat right here if Ecclestone is ever arrested.

OK, I'll remember that :D

#403 Tommorris747

Tommorris747
  • Member

  • 145 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 29 September 2012 - 19:37

OK, I'll remember that :D


Mark my words I will eat my hat and I have no fear of saying so because Ecclestone will never get arrested (at least not connected in any way to Gribkowsky). Believe me, if Ecclestone was to get arrested there would be much much bigger problems for F1 (like will it continue) being discussed here that no one would actually notice a hat eater in the corner :)

#404 MustangSally

MustangSally
  • Member

  • 368 posts
  • Joined: December 11

Posted 29 September 2012 - 20:14

You mean that would be the charge if the prosecutors take legal action. Time will tell if the SZ is right and I for one will quite openly eat my eat right here if Ecclestone is ever arrested.


It looks to me as if they want a scalp and a scapegoat . . . which was my impression in the beginning.

'They' being public officials in Bavaria who were involved in the goings on at Bayern. Weren't some high positions at the bank held by politicians related to Merkel's party?

I wouldn't be so surprised if Bernie is blackballed for their own ends.

And Bernie did not venture into Germany for the GP . . . which suggests he is taking the possibility seriously.




#405 TriumphST

TriumphST
  • Member

  • 230 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 30 September 2012 - 14:25

Mark my words I will eat my hat and I have no fear of saying so because Ecclestone will never get arrested (at least not connected in any way to Gribkowsky). Believe me, if Ecclestone was to get arrested there would be much much bigger problems for F1 (like will it continue) being discussed here that no one would actually notice a hat eater in the corner :)


Never fear F1 would continue unabated. Just make sure your hat is organic.

#406 swerved

swerved
  • Member

  • 3,593 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 25 October 2012 - 12:30

"Bank wants Ecclestone to pay back $400m"

http://www.f1zone.ne...ack-400m/16363/

#407 MustangSally

MustangSally
  • Member

  • 368 posts
  • Joined: December 11

Posted 25 October 2012 - 13:04

"Bank wants Ecclestone to pay back $400m"

http://www.f1zone.ne...ack-400m/16363/


So, we are back to square one?

It's not about Bernie bribing a public official, or (allegedly) giving false testimony, it's back to the original claim that the shares were undervalued.

Really does seem that this should have been proven, or not, during Grib's trial. And that the prosecution can't make up its mind.


#408 jjcale

jjcale
  • Member

  • 7,211 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 25 October 2012 - 20:25

So, we are back to square one?

It's not about Bernie bribing a public official, or (allegedly) giving false testimony, it's back to the original claim that the shares were undervalued.

Really does seem that this should have been proven, or not, during Grib's trial. And that the prosecution can't make up its mind.


Was he a public offical?

Where do they plan to bring the case?

#409 swerved

swerved
  • Member

  • 3,593 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 25 October 2012 - 20:30

Was he a public offical?

Where do they plan to bring the case?


Well they have at least been in touch, but it seems he's blanked them. :lol:


http://www.guardian......ian.co.uk F1)


#410 scheivlak

scheivlak
  • Member

  • 11,180 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 25 October 2012 - 20:39

So, we are back to square one?

It's not about Bernie bribing a public official, or (allegedly) giving false testimony, it's back to the original claim that the shares were undervalued.

Really does seem that this should have been proven, or not, during Grib's trial. And that the prosecution can't make up its mind.

No, there are two separate cases.
One by the prosecution about bribing a public official (still on hold), one by the BLB about the money.

#411 TriumphST

TriumphST
  • Member

  • 230 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 25 October 2012 - 20:56

No, there are two separate cases.
One by the prosecution about bribing a public official (still on hold), one by the BLB about the money.


And the third as you're aware of Constantin Median. Though the Kirch estate will undoubtedly enter the fray when the time is right. For Ecclestone this has the makings of a perfect storm.

Edited by TriumphST, 25 October 2012 - 22:57.


#412 Hippo

Hippo
  • Member

  • 2,378 posts
  • Joined: April 08

Posted 25 October 2012 - 21:04

German newspapers are writing, that BLB has substantial proof for their claims. If that's correct, then Bernie is done. And maybe F1 too. Also if the supposed proof really is substantial, then the case isn't just a bribery case anymore. Then it would also be a case of fraud/embezzlement.

#413 Tommorris747

Tommorris747
  • Member

  • 145 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 25 October 2012 - 22:40

German newspapers are writing, that BLB has substantial proof for their claims. If that's correct, then Bernie is done. And maybe F1 too. Also if the supposed proof really is substantial, then the case isn't just a bribery case anymore. Then it would also be a case of fraud/embezzlement.


You've gotta love this 'exclusive' news in the Times that a headhunter firm has been instructed to draw up a list of replacements for Ecclestone:
http://www.thetimes....icle3580037.ece

"Bernie Ecclestone remained defiant last night as it was revealed that the search for his replacement at the head of Formula One has started. The man who has ruled F1 for more than 30 years is facing a $400 million (about £248 million) compensation claim from one of Germany’s biggest banks, which alleges it was short-changed in the sale of the sport seven years ago. But a prosecutor in Munich is also mulling over evidence to decide whether Ecclestone should face criminal charges. It is the biggest challenge facing Ecclestone, who will be 82 on Sunday, in his long career and has shaken shareholders in F1. Board members asked one of the world’s biggest headhunting companies to draw up a list of potential replacements for F1’s ageing chief executive, The Times has learnt. Egon Zehnder International, which has offices around the world, was asked to suggest names of executives who could follow Ecclestone should the worst happen and he is charged by the German authorities. The request came as shareholders made a play to float F1 on the Singapore Stock Exchange."

This would be huge news if it wasn't for the fact that the precise news was reported back in May....
http://www.ft.com/cm...l#axzz2ALscrThu

"In a 487-page prospectus to be sent to potential investors ahead of next month’s planned initial public offering, the company acknowledges that the loss of Mr Ecclestone could have a “material adverse effect on our business and results”. But it also alludes for the first time to a post-Ecclestone era for F1: a succession plan crafted with headhunter Egon Zehnder that includes a contingency arrangement involving pre-identified candidates drawn from the top of large global businesses who are on standby to take over at a moment’s notice."

DOH!!!!!!
:rolleyes:

#414 TriumphST

TriumphST
  • Member

  • 230 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 25 October 2012 - 23:48

Was he a public offical?

Where do they plan to bring the case?


Isn't that what it's all going to hinge on?

There are the odd reports in the german press that Gribkowsky has testified that Ecclestone called him a 'civil servant' indicating he (Ecclestone) was aware of his 'public official' status.

I'm wondering if BE will be spending XMas at home this year?

Edited by TriumphST, 25 October 2012 - 23:51.


#415 Sakae

Sakae
  • Member

  • 19,256 posts
  • Joined: December 03

Posted 26 October 2012 - 04:44

Headhunter engaged..? Does this implies that there is no succession plan in place yet, or if there is one, it was rejected by - whom - ? Ecclestone is no spring chicken, and regardless of his business issues, life is passing on, thus one would expect that in the background replacement parts should be on the shelve by now.

Edited by Sakae, 26 October 2012 - 04:45.


#416 blackhand2010

blackhand2010
  • Member

  • 281 posts
  • Joined: August 06

Posted 26 October 2012 - 07:59

Well, if you believe the gossip, Randy Bernard might be in the job market soon...

#417 jjcale

jjcale
  • Member

  • 7,211 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 26 October 2012 - 08:15

Looks like my theory that CVC cannot sack BE is going to be tested...

Edited by jjcale, 26 October 2012 - 08:15.


#418 Rob

Rob
  • Member

  • 8,127 posts
  • Joined: February 01

Posted 26 October 2012 - 09:46

Well, if you believe the gossip, Randy Bernard might be in the job market soon...

I don't believe the gossip.

#419 TriumphST

TriumphST
  • Member

  • 230 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 26 October 2012 - 11:10

Looks like my theory that CVC cannot sack BE is going to be tested...


Well I've always contended Ecclestone was going to benefit from any ownership change of F1's commercial rights through enhanced shareholding in the CVC vehicle (by way of inducements to reduce purchase costs below a target price CVC would have been willing to pay anyway).

So even now with CVC liquidating much of the value to other fund's, retaining around 35% it probably still retains operational control. Question is, how much is now in Ecclestone's control and can he outvote CVC's minority holding?

The goalposts have been moved and Ecclestone could once again be impervious and so you might yet be proved correct on the sacking.

Edited by TriumphST, 26 October 2012 - 14:05.


Advertisement

#420 Baddoer

Baddoer
  • Member

  • 1,495 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 26 October 2012 - 12:12

Oh finally. I hope he takes Tilke with him and all his masterpieces.

#421 Afterburner

Afterburner
  • Member

  • 3,203 posts
  • Joined: January 11

Posted 20 November 2012 - 20:33

I think this thread deserves a bump.

http://formula-one.s...y-legal-action/

Edited by Afterburner, 20 November 2012 - 20:34.


#422 swerved

swerved
  • Member

  • 3,593 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 20 November 2012 - 20:36

"After explaining the details chronology of the affair over some 27 pages, it concludes: “Each of CVC, Alpha Prema, Alpha Topco, and Delta Topco extracted billions of dollars from Formula One that do not rightfully belong to them. CVC, Alpha Prema, Alpha Topco, and Delta Topco have profited enormously from CVC’s wrongful acquisition of Formula One, which is currently valued at $10 billion."

Interesting.

#423 ForeverF1

ForeverF1
  • RC Forum Host

  • 6,412 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 20 November 2012 - 20:44

Never, ever, trust a second-hand car salesman.

#424 swerved

swerved
  • Member

  • 3,593 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 20 November 2012 - 20:51

Never, ever, trust a second-hand car salesman.


:D

No warranty given or implied.

#425 ForeverF1

ForeverF1
  • RC Forum Host

  • 6,412 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 20 November 2012 - 20:56

:D

No warranty given or implied.

Sold as seen. About time that the authorities caught up with him. I do think that he could have done as much for F1 as he has, without the wheeler-dealing though.

#426 One

One
  • Member

  • 6,527 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 20 November 2012 - 21:59

Never, ever, trust a second-hand car salesman.

I never trust Banker nor politician.

#427 ForeverF1

ForeverF1
  • RC Forum Host

  • 6,412 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 20 November 2012 - 22:04

I never trust Banker nor politician.

Your spelling is atrocious.  ;)

#428 One

One
  • Member

  • 6,527 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 20 November 2012 - 22:09

Your spelling is atrocious. ;)

Thanx I blame apple, like maps. ;-)

#429 jjcale

jjcale
  • Member

  • 7,211 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 20 November 2012 - 22:10

I think this thread deserves a bump.

http://formula-one.s...y-legal-action/


Loss of chance action ... in NY :confused:

Stalking horse??

#430 oetzi

oetzi
  • Member

  • 2,924 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 20 November 2012 - 22:18

I never trust Banker nor politician.

It's only because politicians and bankers take all your money that there even are second hand car salesmen.

#431 Sakae

Sakae
  • Member

  • 19,256 posts
  • Joined: December 03

Posted 20 November 2012 - 22:19

Loss of chance action ... in NY :confused:

Stalking horse??

That's what I think; compensation for loss of potential business profits? Only in America. A claim could be made for money lost on submitting a legitimate bid for the job, which they can attempt to recover due to events behind the curtain and out of their control.

Edited by Sakae, 20 November 2012 - 22:20.


#432 jjcale

jjcale
  • Member

  • 7,211 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 20 November 2012 - 22:55

That's what I think; compensation for loss of potential business profits? Only in America. A claim could be made for money lost on submitting a legitimate bid for the job, which they can attempt to recover due to events behind the curtain and out of their control.


You can do it in other common law countries ... but why NY? and why these folks?

Only thing I can think of is NY's generous disclosure rules, hence possible stalking horse for a more serious claimant ... but whaddaI know :p

#433 MustangSally

MustangSally
  • Member

  • 368 posts
  • Joined: December 11

Posted 21 November 2012 - 06:18

Bernie's comment.

'Never heard of them and nothing to do with me mate'

Ecclestone told Reuters he was surprised that the case had been brought and said he had not heard of Bluewaters.
“I couldn’t have been involved because I had nothing to sell,” he told Reuters by telephone from Brazil where the final Formula One grand prix race of the season will take place at the weekend. The New York case also named BayernLB and CVC among the defendants. Neither company would comment on the suit.


So, by bringing a case against Gribkowsky, Bayern LB has won itself a 650m lawsuit. Not exactly a result.

#434 BRG

BRG
  • Member

  • 11,424 posts
  • Joined: September 99

Posted 21 November 2012 - 12:09

Blood in the water, the sharks are starting to gather.

These are Bernie's chickens coming home to roost at last.

(Mixed metaphors there - will the sharks eat the chickens?)

#435 paulrobs

paulrobs
  • Member

  • 507 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 21 November 2012 - 12:17

I think this thread deserves a bump.

http://formula-one.s...y-legal-action/


Yes indeed, thanks for the link.

Interesting. I must admit, I thought Bernie was looking a little downbeat at the weekend and nowhere near as up as I thought he would be given that the GP was going so well. Maybe he knew what was coming.

#436 TriumphST

TriumphST
  • Member

  • 230 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 21 November 2012 - 14:19

That's what I think; compensation for loss of potential business profits? Only in America. A claim could be made for money lost on submitting a legitimate bid for the job, which they can attempt to recover due to events behind the curtain and out of their control.


Not only in the US... failure to observe the regulations in procurement or awarding a contract to supply within the EU will render an organisation to pay damages to those marginalised, and that can include loss of profit if memory serves. EU Journal and all that.

Edited by TriumphST, 21 November 2012 - 14:21.


#437 TriumphST

TriumphST
  • Member

  • 230 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 21 November 2012 - 14:27

Blood in the water, the sharks are starting to gather.

These are Bernie's chickens coming home to roost at last.

(Mixed metaphors there - will the sharks eat the chickens?)


How many are currently on the go at the moment, Constantin, Bayern and now Bluewater with Kirch and the Munich prosecutors yet to declare.

No wonder CVC can't sell.

Did wonder how this might impact on ecclestone's little german problem. If his previous testimony relied on his assertion CVC were the highest bidder but Bluewaters Comms now blow that out of the water and crucially they have the documentation to prove it...... then ecclestone has a credibility issue, lying under oath to the german prosecutor won't do him any favours trying to convince them not to prosecute.

Edited by TriumphST, 21 November 2012 - 23:04.


#438 jjcale

jjcale
  • Member

  • 7,211 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 21 November 2012 - 22:52

Not only in the US... failure to observe the regulations in procurement or awarding a contract to supply within the EU will render an organisation to pay damages to those marginalised, and that can include loss of profit if memory serves. EU Journal and all that.


dont think a one off sale of a business/shares would fall under this ... but:

What if you marginalise 10 to advantage 1 - do all 10 have a claim :drunk: :p

... or does there have to be a re-tender to see which of the 10 would have been the winner :drunk: :p :clap:

Only in the Eurocrats can come up with this stuff.... :well: ...:lol:

Edited by jjcale, 21 November 2012 - 22:52.


#439 Felix

Felix
  • Member

  • 706 posts
  • Joined: December 03

Posted 22 November 2012 - 00:58

How many are currently on the go at the moment, Constantin, Bayern and now Bluewater with Kirch and the Munich prosecutors yet to declare.


plus the uk tax investigation...

Advertisement

#440 MustangSally

MustangSally
  • Member

  • 368 posts
  • Joined: December 11

Posted 22 November 2012 - 14:50

Bluewater's suit is entirely hypothetical.

There is nothing to say they had the money or could have raised the money. They didn't even know the bid figure, nor did they bid a fixed amount.

There is nothing to say that they would have finally closed the deal, nor made the same return on investment as CVC, having a different business model and an F1 minus Ecclestone.

There is nothing to say that their bid would have been approved by the FIA.

I think this is lawyers 'having a laugh' . . . just because they can.

Seems to me the party with the strongest case/grievance is Kirch . . . no hypothesis there, a 2.7bn stake was sold for 900m. But the lead seller and player in all this business was Bayern LB, the biggest shareholder.

If the shares were undervalued, or mis-sold, it is Bayern's responsibility . . . and the bank is corporately responsible for its employee, the Risk Officer Gribkowsky.

Bernie guarantees the most column inches in the press, but he was a bit player in this whole scenario.

Edited by MustangSally, 22 November 2012 - 14:52.


#441 Rob

Rob
  • Member

  • 8,127 posts
  • Joined: February 01

Posted 22 November 2012 - 14:52

I don't believe the gossip.

Aww, now don't I look stupid. :rolleyes:

#442 TriumphST

TriumphST
  • Member

  • 230 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 22 November 2012 - 18:36

Bluewater's suit is entirely hypothetical.

There is nothing to say they had the money or could have raised the money. They didn't even know the bid figure, nor did they bid a fixed amount.

There is nothing to say that they would have finally closed the deal, nor made the same return on investment as CVC, having a different business model and an F1 minus Ecclestone.

There is nothing to say that their bid would have been approved by the FIA.

I think this is lawyers 'having a laugh' . . . just because they can.

Seems to me the party with the strongest case/grievance is Kirch . . . no hypothesis there, a 2.7bn stake was sold for 900m. But the lead seller and player in all this business was Bayern LB, the biggest shareholder.

If the shares were undervalued, or mis-sold, it is Bayern's responsibility . . . and the bank is corporately responsible for its employee, the Risk Officer Gribkowsky.

Bernie guarantees the most column inches in the press, but he was a bit player in this whole scenario.


They have documentary evidence to prove they had the funds, what they maintain is Ecclestone and CVC along with Gribkowsky were complicit in illegally activity to prevent a bidding process that would have achieved a higher price for not only BayernLB but also Morgan's and Lehman's.

On Kirch, his estate are I think looking into this anyway.

Your analysis of BayernLB culpability is relentless, but of Ecclestone's you're less scathing. Surely that it was an action between two parties so skilfully executed that no employer could reasonably be expected to prevent it. Just this week a trader went to jail for almost breaking UBS and losing over a billion in the process, they couldn't prevent that either. BayernLB can't be held responsible for the criminal actions (according to their submission) of Gribkowsky Ecclestone and CVC they name several others including BayernLB strangly there's no mention of Stephen Mullens..

Copy of the court submission, sorry for the location....http://www.pitpass.com/images/pdfs/2012_bluewaters_lawsuit.pdf



#443 Tommorris747

Tommorris747
  • Member

  • 145 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 22 November 2012 - 23:53

They have documentary evidence to prove they had the funds, what they maintain is Ecclestone and CVC along with Gribkowsky were complicit in illegally activity to prevent a bidding process that would have achieved a higher price for not only BayernLB but also Morgan's and Lehman's.

On Kirch, his estate are I think looking into this anyway.

Your analysis of BayernLB culpability is relentless, but of Ecclestone's you're less scathing. Surely that it was an action between two parties so skilfully executed that no employer could reasonably be expected to prevent it. Just this week a trader went to jail for almost breaking UBS and losing over a billion in the process, they couldn't prevent that either. BayernLB can't be held responsible for the criminal actions (according to their submission) of Gribkowsky Ecclestone and CVC they name several others including BayernLB strangly there's no mention of Stephen Mullens..

Copy of the court submission, sorry for the location....http://www.pitpass.com/images/pdfs/2012_bluewaters_lawsuit.pdf


Bluewaters has evidence that it had one billion dollars which is $258.3 million less than the amount paid by CVC let alone enough to make a higher bid. The lawsuit is also factually flawed in at least one area. On page 2 it states that "The members of the Bank Group were J.P. Morgan Chase Bank (“J.P. Morgan”), Lehman Commercial Paper (“Lehman”), and defendant BayernLB, a government-owned German bank." It adds that "The Bank Group had acquired 75% of the shares of the then top-level holding company controlling Formula 1, Speed Investments Limited." This is inaccurate because, in fact, the bank group had acquired 100% of Speed Investments. I presume that what they meant is that Speed Investments had acquired 75% of the shares of the then intermediate holding company controlling Formula 1, SLEC Holdings. It's a small point but lawsuits often stand or fall on tiny details just like this. More to the point, if they can't get details right about something as straightforward as the company structure then it makes you wonder whether their deeper argument is free from this kind of flaw.

#444 swerved

swerved
  • Member

  • 3,593 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 24 November 2012 - 11:22

Is this Bernie building up his mitigation ?

"One day, I'm not going to be there and one of the biggest problems is I've got really, really good relationships with the race promoters. A few of them said to me, 'if you're not there, we're not there'. That's what the danger is."



http://www.independe...nd-8347700.html

#445 BRG

BRG
  • Member

  • 11,424 posts
  • Joined: September 99

Posted 25 November 2012 - 21:23

"One day, I'm not going to be there and one of the biggest problems is I've got really, really good relationships with the race promoters. A few of them said to me, 'if you're not there, we're not there'. That's what the danger is."

Yes, because there was no F1 at all before Bernie took control was there? No race track in the world wanted to hold F1 races. From 1950 to 1980, the F1 championship consisted of two races a year run in a car park in Scunthorpe.

Methinks Bernie's ego has landed...

#446 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 36,816 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 11 January 2013 - 08:47

Not sure if it's mentioned in the thread but Constantin Medien's claim against Ecclestone, Bambino and Gribowsky is to be heard this October, listed for 20 days. They've also sued Bernie's brief Stephen Mullins.

Bernie's got the absolute litigation heavyweights defending him - Robert Miles QC, instructed by Herbert Smith, in F1 terms that's not far off Hamilton driving for Ferrari - whereas Gribowsky is represented by...himself.

Claim is that Ecclestone got F1's price lowered when it was sold to CVC through bribery. And that cos the price was lower Medien lost out on a profit-sharing agreement. He's got Philip Marshall QC instructed by Peters & Peters.

#447 F1ultimate

F1ultimate
  • Member

  • 2,859 posts
  • Joined: November 10

Posted 11 January 2013 - 09:11

The fact that the hearing is a commercial court matter paves the way for settlement in the event that Bernie is found guilty. He won't spend a day in jail. The second he smells defeat brewing, he will throw in a towel of money.

#448 Craigster

Craigster
  • Member

  • 82 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 11 January 2013 - 15:52

The fact that the hearing is a commercial court matter paves the way for settlement in the event that Bernie is found guilty. He won't spend a day in jail. The second he smells defeat brewing, he will throw in a towel of money.


Am I the only one here who can see the contradiction in the UK tax authority running an investigation into Ecclestone alongside the German investigation into him? If the UK authority finds that Ecclestone did have something to hide with his taxes then that means it is likely he paid Gribowsky the money to stop him blowing the whistle on it. This would mean that the money was not a bribe connected to sale of F1 as the German prosecutors believe so it would make their investigation pointless. Vice Versa, if the German prosecutors arrest Ecclestone for paying a bribe to Gribowsky so that he would agree to sell F1 to CVC then if that is proven in court, it means there is no reason to suggest that Ecclestone had anything to hide connected to his taxes.

Having said that, Ecclestone is not being investigated for tax evasion but for to identify if there are any amounts of underpaid tax. I think it's Code of Practice 8 which is applied in cases where the tax authority investigates if the tax planning is effective to achieve its intended effect. Gribowsky was presumably threatening to say that tax was underpaid so the consequence is the same - if this is what happened then the money was not a bribe about the sale of F1. How can both investigations be right?

#449 jjcale

jjcale
  • Member

  • 7,211 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 11 January 2013 - 19:24

Not sure if it's mentioned in the thread but Constantin Medien's claim against Ecclestone, Bambino and Gribowsky is to be heard this October, listed for 20 days. They've also sued Bernie's brief Stephen Mullins.

Bernie's got the absolute litigation heavyweights defending him - Robert Miles QC, instructed by Herbert Smith, in F1 terms that's not far off Hamilton driving for Ferrari - whereas Gribowsky is represented by...himself.

Claim is that Ecclestone got F1's price lowered when it was sold to CVC through bribery. And that cos the price was lower Medien lost out on a profit-sharing agreement. He's got Philip Marshall QC instructed by Peters & Peters.


He will need them to keep Keith Oliver off him .... who by now probably knows more about the inner workings of the commercial side of F1 than any other (non Bernie/CVC/JPM) lawyer in the country IMHO.

What I dont understand is why what is left of EM TV's interest is suing but what is left of Kirch's interest is(?) holding back...

Is this yet another stalking horse?

#450 jjcale

jjcale
  • Member

  • 7,211 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 11 January 2013 - 19:32

Am I the only one here who can see the contradiction in the UK tax authority running an investigation into Ecclestone alongside the German investigation into him? If the UK authority finds that Ecclestone did have something to hide with his taxes then that means it is likely he paid Gribowsky the money to stop him blowing the whistle on it. This would mean that the money was not a bribe connected to sale of F1 as the German prosecutors believe so it would make their investigation pointless. Vice Versa, if the German prosecutors arrest Ecclestone for paying a bribe to Gribowsky so that he would agree to sell F1 to CVC then if that is proven in court, it means there is no reason to suggest that Ecclestone had anything to hide connected to his taxes.

Having said that, Ecclestone is not being investigated for tax evasion but for to identify if there are any amounts of underpaid tax. I think it's Code of Practice 8 which is applied in cases where the tax authority investigates if the tax planning is effective to achieve its intended effect. Gribowsky was presumably threatening to say that tax was underpaid so the consequence is the same - if this is what happened then the money was not a bribe about the sale of F1. How can both investigations be right?


Good spot (I think :p) ... but it does not really matter - as Learned Hand said "The life of the law has not been logic, it has been experience" ... or put another way: they make it up as they go along ...