Jump to content


Photo
* * * * * 4 votes

Charges pressed against Bernie Ecclestone [merged]


  • Please log in to reply
867 replies to this topic

#601 Petroltorque

Petroltorque
  • Member

  • 1,907 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 02 May 2014 - 09:38

As someone has previous pointed out Ecclestone's indictment is on Bribery. If he is arguing blackmail as extenuating then that's for sentencing. The crux of the case is that paying off Gibrowsky allowed him to stay in control. There are many more interested parties waiting on the outcome before launching their cases.


Edited by Petroltorque, 02 May 2014 - 13:17.


Advertisement

#602 jimbox01

jimbox01
  • Member

  • 140 posts
  • Joined: July 11

Posted 02 May 2014 - 10:07

I would be fascinated to see the argument that the trustees would make that they acted in the best interests of beneficiaries by making a blackmail payment.  As opposed to e.g. telling the police.

 

As it is, if a trustee thinks a decision he wants to take is of marginal benefit to the trustees, he can go to Court to get it cleared.  I am betting that the Bambino trustees did not do so.

I completely agree with you, the whole thing stinks, but it would have been a bit difficult for them to go to the authorities when no specific threat was ever made - at least not according to the evidence so far.  It's not as if Bernie/Bambino was being intimidated by some shady underworld character, at that time Gribkowsky was still a highly respected bank official, and making unsubstantiated allegation to the police may have had serious consequences. Do they takes Bernie's word for it and pay a relatively small amount of money for the problem to go away, or do the right thing and risk losing a huge chunk of the trusts' funds?

 

I would imagine Bernie's argument would be along the lines of 'I couldn't tell the police about it because we couldn't prove anything, but I felt it was a very real threat so had to inform the trustees'.



#603 f1fan1998

f1fan1998
  • Member

  • 292 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 02 May 2014 - 10:20

Its not just the uber rich .... there have been and still are lots of wheezes that even moderately wealthy people use ... as someone above said, even a normal entrepreneur can negotiate effectively with HMRC.... Hardly surprising that Bernie, Goldman etc can effectively do as they please.  

 

Yes, that was me  :wave:

 

 

Here (on top of the tax mentioned above) you also must pay National Insurance (state health insurance - a tax really) of 12% if you're employed or 9% if you're self-employed. The rate changes to 2% once you get to the maximum 12/9% band (around £40,000).

 

There's a similar way of structuring things if you are a limited company in the UK to the way you mentioned.

 

Or if a UK Ltd company, then the director/s takes a salary which equates to the minimum tax threshold for National Insurance. For the new tax year we have just entered it is £7956. Meaning I have had a pay rise from the government as last year the threshold was £7755. The rest of ones earnings are taken as dividends. Meaning that the directors are paying no employees N.I, the company is not paying employers N.I either.

 

As someone has previous pointed out Ecclestone's indictment is on Blackmail. If he is arguing blackmail as extenuating then that's for sentencing. The crux of the case is that paying off Gibrowsky allowed him to stay in control. There are many more interested parties waiting on the outcome before launching their cases.

 

The HMRC being one of them no doubt - although I don't see how they have a leg to stand on as they have already accepted settlement.



#604 Nemo1965

Nemo1965
  • Member

  • 2,428 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 02 May 2014 - 10:53


The HMRC being one of them no doubt - although I don't see how they have a leg to stand on as they have already accepted settlement.

 

But isn't part of the settlement a full disclosure of the person you are making a deal with? If I would go the Dutch tax-authorities and would say: 'Listen, I've got 20 million on a Liechtenstein bankaccount. It is eating my nerves. Can't we make a deal?', then that deal would judged to be null and void if the taxman would find out that I have 30 million on a Swiss bankaccount as well...



#605 Maustinsj

Maustinsj
  • Member

  • 909 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 02 May 2014 - 11:50

Or if a UK Ltd company, then the director/s takes a salary which equates to the minimum tax threshold for National Insurance. For the new tax year we have just entered it is £7956. Meaning I have had a pay rise from the government as last year the threshold was £7755. The rest of ones earnings are taken as dividends. Meaning that the directors are paying no employees N.I, the company is not paying employers N.I either


It was £7696 last year. £7755 is the Class 4 limit, not Class 1.

Ps, this year, increase your salary to £10k as if you qualify for the employer's £2k allowance, you'll pay no employer's NI. All you'll pay is 12% employees' NI but save Corporation Tax at 20%! Simples.

That'll be £500 please for that tax advice. Payable to my trustees in Lichtenstein, of course.

#606 jjcale

jjcale
  • Member

  • 7,307 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 02 May 2014 - 12:49

I completely agree with you, the whole thing stinks, but it would have been a bit difficult for them to go to the authorities when no specific threat was ever made - at least not according to the evidence so far.  It's not as if Bernie/Bambino was being intimidated by some shady underworld character, at that time Gribkowsky was still a highly respected bank official, and making unsubstantiated allegation to the police may have had serious consequences. Do they takes Bernie's word for it and pay a relatively small amount of money for the problem to go away, or do the right thing and risk losing a huge chunk of the trusts' funds?

 

I would imagine Bernie's argument would be along the lines of 'I couldn't tell the police about it because we couldn't prove anything, but I felt it was a very real threat so had to inform the trustees'.

 

A what???



#607 TriumphST

TriumphST
  • Member

  • 244 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 02 May 2014 - 13:34

Indeed. Of course it was sometimes cheesy, speculative and very childish... but regarding the whole blackmail-case and Bernie's tax-evasion it asked a pertinent question: if Bernie is speaking the truth - he was blackmailed by mr. Bigopoehgoeoksy or whatever his name was - it still 'shows' that he used trusts (that were not his, nor under his control, according to him) to pay the blackmail. Which means his agreement with the British taxman was based on a lie... which means that, indeed, as Panorama states, he has withdrawn 2 billion from the British taxman.

 

I think that everyone has the right to moan about the decline about Panorama and the quality of the accusations. But methinks it is a little bit too easy to throw away the music because the tone was not pleasant.

 

So... did the Panorama program offer any new nails in the coffin of mr. Ecclestone? Or not? And why not?

 

I suppose it posed the question and credibility of why a man should place into a trust (from which he can neither benefit nor control) so much of his wealth. Leaving so little that he has to rely on the largess of an ex-wife to the tune of an untaxed £/$100m a year from that self same trust to keep his body and soul nourished?  

 

Now while Panorama were certainly a little short of information but they highlighted fraud/evasion concerns that HMRC would not only be aware of also be considering an intervention in Ecclestone's tax affairs in the light of the earlier revelations of the trusts administrators.

 

But as a very senior tax specialist commented to me yesterday "while the programme failed to be specific enough on detail to draw conclusions, what was patently obvious is the whole thing stinks". Furthermore she informs me that in fraud cases HMRC are not 'time barred' so they can and will go back as far as it takes dependent on the evidence and the possibility of winning the case.

 

Now Ecclestone has been branded a liar by one UK High Court Judge and currently charged in a Munich trial with bribery, why limit discussion on the breath of Mr Ecclestone's other indiscretions? To ignore them and the character traits he ably demonstrates in allegedly fiddling his and F1's tax liability is nonsensical and while often it's seen as a victimless crime but those millions or billions could have been put to better use in our hospitals rather then funding the Ecclestone family's extravagant life style through fraud.



#608 Nemo1965

Nemo1965
  • Member

  • 2,428 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 02 May 2014 - 14:05

I suppose it posed the question and credibility of why a man should place into a trust (from which he can neither benefit nor control) so much of his wealth. Leaving so little that he has to rely on the largess of an ex-wife to the tune of an untaxed £/$100m a year from that self same trust to keep his body and soul nourished?  

 

Now while Panorama were certainly a little short of information but they highlighted fraud/evasion concerns that HMRC would not only be aware of also be considering an intervention in Ecclestone's tax affairs in the light of the earlier revelations of the trusts administrators.

 

But as a very senior tax specialist commented to me yesterday "while the programme failed to be specific enough on detail to draw conclusions, what was patently obvious is the whole thing stinks". Furthermore she informs me that in fraud cases HMRC are not 'time barred' so they can and will go back as far as it takes dependent on the evidence and the possibility of winning the case.

 

Now Ecclestone has been branded a liar by one UK High Court Judge and currently charged in a Munich trial with bribery, why limit discussion on the breath of Mr Ecclestone's other indiscretions? To ignore them and the character traits he ably demonstrates in allegedly fiddling his and F1's tax liability is nonsensical and while often it's seen as a victimless crime but those millions or billions could have been put to better use in our hospitals rather then funding the Ecclestone family's extravagant life style through fraud.

 

I think, in retrospect, that if the HMRC starts new investigations into Bernie's taxdealings, Panorama did offer some nails to the coffin...

 

Furthermore, I agree on the general assesment you and your learned friend made of the program. It was a journalistic program for the broad public, not a file for tax-attorneys and not even for F1 anoraks. It painted in broad strokes how Ecclestone has organised his financial life... wether or not he is convicted, at least for the public the program offers enough material to debate the question: legal or illegal, is this morally acceptable behaviour?

 

Perhaps posters will say: 'But that is not the question we are debating?' Well... yes. Because in matters like these the general consensus does matter in the end. I believe it was Karl Popper who said that shifts in paradigms do not occur because of new found facts (... because the facts are already there), but because society as a whole is ready for the change.

 

I sounded a bit like Ron Dennis there... I mean to say: wether or not the HMRC starts digging in to this pile of .... again has certainly to do with general consensus about the moral aspects of Bernie's behaviour, and I dare say that also the case in Germany is heavily influenced by the changing view on 'the rich' and their behaviour.



#609 Petroltorque

Petroltorque
  • Member

  • 1,907 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 02 May 2014 - 15:47

Let's face it. Ecclestone is a crook. You don't get that rich as a second hand car salesman without knowing some seriously dubious practices. Before anyone starts issuing writs, this is my honest opinion, or this is what I'll be arguing at the Bailey.

#610 TriumphST

TriumphST
  • Member

  • 244 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 02 May 2014 - 17:33

As someone has previous pointed out Ecclestone's indictment is on Bribery. If he is arguing blackmail as extenuating then that's for sentencing. The crux of the case is that paying off Gibrowsky allowed him to stay in control. There are many more interested parties waiting on the outcome before launching their cases.

 

Thinking that the defence is reverting to the 'I didn't know Gribkowsky was a public official' line.....I suppose now everyone and their great great grandma have poo pooed the blackmail defence he was always going to need a fallback position.

 

But as he runs out of stratagems he'll be cognisant of not leaving the plea bargain so late he alienates Judge Peter Noll in the process, just as Gerhard did....


Edited by TriumphST, 02 May 2014 - 17:33.


#611 TriumphST

TriumphST
  • Member

  • 244 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 02 May 2014 - 17:59

I completely agree with you, the whole thing stinks, but it would have been a bit difficult for them to go to the authorities when no specific threat was ever made - at least not according to the evidence so far.  It's not as if Bernie/Bambino was being intimidated by some shady underworld character, at that time Gribkowsky was still a highly respected bank official, and making unsubstantiated allegation to the police may have had serious consequences. Do they takes Bernie's word for it and pay a relatively small amount of money for the problem to go away, or do the right thing and risk losing a huge chunk of the trusts' funds?

 

I would imagine Bernie's argument would be along the lines of 'I couldn't tell the police about it because we couldn't prove anything, but I felt it was a very real threat so had to inform the trustees'.

 

Who in their right mind would believe anything that came out of Ecclestone's mouth? 



#612 femi

femi
  • Member

  • 6,483 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 02 May 2014 - 18:50

Who in their right mind would believe anything that came out of Ecclestone's mouth?


F1 teams!

#613 TriumphST

TriumphST
  • Member

  • 244 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 02 May 2014 - 22:08

F1 teams!

Believe him no......fear him yes.   As you well know. 



#614 Seano

Seano
  • Member

  • 297 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 02 May 2014 - 23:50

He's not supposed to get sacked until proven guilty but the growing tide of evidence of his behaviour (blurring both personal and corporate), the judge's description of his character and public's perception of his conduct, must be stretching the board at CVC to absolute breaking point.

 

I can only conclude that CVC have realised that without him, the whole show and their ill advised investment, is likely to collapse completely.

 

The other thing that is strange is what motivates him to cling on, he is a rich as croesus, his family are well provided for whatever happens and the grim reaper is patiently waiting in the wings.

 

His tarnished personal reputation can't be restored but he risks the very life of the sport that gave him everything.

 

What a greedy, selfish and contemptible little man.

 

Seano 



#615 Nemo1965

Nemo1965
  • Member

  • 2,428 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 03 May 2014 - 08:29

Believe him no......fear him yes.   As you well know. 

 

Well, at least they believed him when they though he was negotiating on their behalfs... while he was putting the rights to his own name...



#616 TriumphST

TriumphST
  • Member

  • 244 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 09 May 2014 - 08:23

Well todays the day Gerhard Gribkowsky's statement is aired in Munich and Ecclestone sits there and squirms.

 

With forty witnesses due to give evidence for the prosecutors I wondered if Ecclestone had managed to find anyone prepared to testify as to his good character.....



#617 MustangSally

MustangSally
  • Member

  • 372 posts
  • Joined: December 11

Posted 10 May 2014 - 18:56

Well todays the day Gerhard Gribkowsky's statement is aired in Munich and Ecclestone sits there and squirms.

 

 

But apparently they smiled and  waved at each other and Gribkowsky has no idea why Bernie  sent him a cheque.

 

Hmmmm . . . .



#618 pdac

pdac
  • Member

  • 1,220 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 11 May 2014 - 01:01

Well todays the day Gerhard Gribkowsky's statement is aired in Munich and Ecclestone sits there and squirms.

 

With forty witnesses due to give evidence for the prosecutors I wondered if Ecclestone had managed to find anyone prepared to testify as to his good character.....

 

Maybe Chris Sylt will



#619 TriumphST

TriumphST
  • Member

  • 244 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 11 May 2014 - 08:23

Maybe Chris Sylt will

 

That one is guaranteed,  but will he explain how on the one hand Ecclestone who was so afraid of what Gribkowsky might tell HMRC that he paid him millions for his silence, yet seemingly lost any fear of the tax authorities  and baulked when it came to pay the final $2.2m instalment he owed the banker?  



Advertisement

#620 Marc Sproule

Marc Sproule
  • Member

  • 665 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 13 May 2014 - 07:17

32 years ago in las vegas. there's an expression that goes with this pic but at the moment it's just not coming to mind......

'

https://www.flickr.c...03/13987182998/



#621 Nemo1965

Nemo1965
  • Member

  • 2,428 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 13 May 2014 - 07:22

But apparently they smiled and  waved at each other and Gribkowsky has no idea why Bernie  sent him a cheque.

 

Hmmmm . . . .

 

That is quite funny. I picture a scene in which Ecclestone gives Gribowsky a cheque to remember him to forget the other cheque.



#622 metz

metz
  • Member

  • 9,821 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 20 May 2014 - 14:01

Political Science 101 states "Money should always be in cash, in small bills, and in an envelope, or (in this case), several large envelopes."



#623 SophieB

SophieB
  • RC Forum Host

  • 2,572 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 29 July 2014 - 17:10

More twists and turns.
 
BBC: F1 boss Bernie Ecclestone seeks bribery case settlement
 

Lawyers for Bernie Ecclestone say the Formula 1 boss is ready to pay a German bank 25 million euros ($34m; £20m) to settle a court case against him.

 

 

Sven Thomas, one of Mr Ecclestone's lawyers, was reported as saying that state prosecutors were open to the proposal but said they would have to review it in detail.

Under German law, prosecutors may withdraw charges during certain criminal trials if all parties agree to a settlement.

In a statement, the court said talks between prosecutors and the defence team "on a potential early end to the proceedings have not yet reached a conclusion".

It did not confirm details of Mr Ecclestone's settlement offer.

 



#624 OSX

OSX
  • Member

  • 4,274 posts
  • Joined: April 06

Posted 29 July 2014 - 17:12

F1 Boss Bernie Ecclestone Seeks Bribery Case Settlement
29 July 2014

 

fKpbRNo.jpg

Lawyers for Bernie Ecclestone say the Formula 1 boss is ready to pay a German bank 25 million euros ($34m; £20m) to settle a court case against him.

 

On Tuesday, Mr Ecclestone's defence team called for proceedings to be stopped because of a lack of evidence and said the F1 chief was prepared to pay a settlement fee.

 

Sven Thomas, one of Mr Ecclestone's lawyers, was reported as saying that state prosecutors were open to the proposal but said they would have to review it in detail.

Full Story: bbc.com/news/world-europe-28547377
 



#625 Fastcake

Fastcake
  • Member

  • 6,472 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 29 July 2014 - 18:02

Is Bernie going to wriggle free after all?



#626 R Soul

R Soul
  • Member

  • 628 posts
  • Joined: August 06

Posted 29 July 2014 - 18:16

Settlements are such a cop out.



#627 Shambolic

Shambolic
  • Member

  • 654 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 29 July 2014 - 18:37

Let me get this straight - To avoid criminal proceedings for bribery, all Bernie has to to is openly bribe people?

 

I hope (forlornly) the prosecution see this as a tacit admittal of guilt, and make sure the trial goes the distance. Being able to buy one's way out of criminal charges would seem, to me, wel.. Criminal.



#628 Andy35

Andy35
  • Member

  • 3,460 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 29 July 2014 - 18:52

Let me get this straight - To avoid criminal proceedings for bribery, all Bernie has to to is openly bribe people?

 

I hope (forlornly) the prosecution see this as a tacit admittal of guilt, and make sure the trial goes the distance. Being able to buy one's way out of criminal charges would seem, to me, wel.. Criminal.

That's what I thought.

 

He is accused of  trying to do a deal that favours himself and now he is getting off that accusation by doing a deal that favours himself...

 

Call me old fashioned but weren't the courts supposed to uphold the moral case of right and wrong?

 

It seems as long as you have money you can do what you want.

 

Pathetic.   At least he can go around to Max's Chelsea dungeon and laugh how they have used the system to their favour again.

 

Andy



#629 Juan Kerr

Juan Kerr
  • Member

  • 2,685 posts
  • Joined: October 05

Posted 29 July 2014 - 18:52

Let me get this straight - To avoid criminal proceedings for bribery, all Bernie has to to is openly bribe people?

 

I hope (forlornly) the prosecution see this as a tacit admittal of guilt, and make sure the trial goes the distance. Being able to buy one's way out of criminal charges would seem, to me, wel.. Criminal.

Hahahaha!!! Gotta laugh :clap:



#630 pdac

pdac
  • Member

  • 1,220 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 29 July 2014 - 18:53

 

So Bernie is going to get off a bribery rap by bribing the prossecution. Laws, but no justice.



#631 Petroltorque

Petroltorque
  • Member

  • 1,907 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 29 July 2014 - 19:52

Correct me if I'm wrong but if you cop a plea it means accepting guilt. I think we can stick a fork in Ecclestone. Either way he's done. A criminal conviction eliminates from any role. I'd also be surprised if the Munich prosecutor accepts his plea. They've put Gibrowsky away and the evidence against Ecclestone is clear cut.

#632 surbjits

surbjits
  • Member

  • 503 posts
  • Joined: November 12

Posted 29 July 2014 - 20:50

It'd be ironic that a bribery got him in this situation, and might just get him back out :rotfl:



#633 Owen

Owen
  • Member

  • 10,768 posts
  • Joined: September 06

Posted 29 July 2014 - 21:08

@FormulaMoney: Ecclestone Makes Second Offer Of $40 Million To End Corruption Trial http://t.co/cfyMv5rW3L via @forbes

#634 black magic

black magic
  • Member

  • 3,880 posts
  • Joined: June 00

Posted 30 July 2014 - 00:25

deal or no deal?



#635 Petroltorque

Petroltorque
  • Member

  • 1,907 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 30 July 2014 - 07:22

Perp walk or no perp walk?



#636 Nemo1965

Nemo1965
  • Member

  • 2,428 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 30 July 2014 - 08:31

Correct me if I'm wrong but if you cop a plea it means accepting guilt.

 

Yes, but as lawyers say 'pro jure' and not always 'de facto'. Meaning: Ecclestone can plead guilty, pay the fine and then walk out to the reporters and say: 'I just pleaded guilty to end the proceedings.'

 

Annoying that. Recently I followed several tax/fraud/embezzlement-cases in the Netherlands and the convicted fraudsters kept pulling this trick. They pleaded guilty, and then the same evening were on tv-talkshows saying: 'I just pleaded guilty to take the burden of myself and my family.'

 

Yeah, right...



#637 KTownDevil

KTownDevil
  • Member

  • 187 posts
  • Joined: February 14

Posted 01 August 2014 - 18:09

Bernie's getting desperate.

 

Süddeutsche Zeitung

 

Third offer $100 Million.

 

http://www.sueddeuts...ollar-1.2073485



#638 SophieB

SophieB
  • RC Forum Host

  • 2,572 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 01 August 2014 - 18:20

Another surreal sounding day in Munich. Court confirms a deal could be struck with Ecclestone as early as next week. Story online soon



#639 Victor_RO

Victor_RO
  • RC Forum Host

  • 2,863 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 01 August 2014 - 18:21

Trying to get out of a bribery trial with even more bribery? DOES NOT COMPUTE.  :well:  :confused:



Advertisement

#640 KnucklesAgain

KnucklesAgain
  • Member

  • 5,137 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 01 August 2014 - 19:48

Here's the German story by Süddeutsche Zeitung, one of the better German papers:

http://www.sueddeuts...ollar-1.2073485



#641 Mohican

Mohican
  • Member

  • 840 posts
  • Joined: May 01

Posted 02 August 2014 - 08:53

Very strange that you can settle a criminal case in Germany; thought that was only possible in the US.

#642 Shambolic

Shambolic
  • Member

  • 654 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 02 August 2014 - 09:07

I don't see how justice can be seen to be done if the accused can simply buy their way out. (I do believe in fair trials, innocent till proven guilty, etc - But how can "So innocent they chose to bypass judgement and hand over shedloads of cash" be a just outcome?)

 

It's hardly like Bernie will sign over a fraction of his immense wealth, and think "Phew, that was close, best I don't do that again", is it?

 

And where does it leave him in terms of F1, FOM, CVC..? Not convicted would in this instance seem to be very different to not guilty, but he'll also not have been found guilty so where's the grounds for removing him from the very position he used, maintained and abused in such a way as to get him in court in the first place?

 

It also makes me wonder how people such as myself, who happen to be a bit short of millions right now, would fare in similar circumstance...



#643 Nemo1965

Nemo1965
  • Member

  • 2,428 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 02 August 2014 - 11:15

I don't see how justice can be seen to be done if the accused can simply buy their way out. (I do believe in fair trials, innocent till proven guilty, etc - But how can "So innocent they chose to bypass judgement and hand over shedloads of cash" be a just outcome?)

 

It's hardly like Bernie will sign over a fraction of his immense wealth, and think "Phew, that was close, best I don't do that again", is it?

 

And where does it leave him in terms of F1, FOM, CVC..? Not convicted would in this instance seem to be very different to not guilty, but he'll also not have been found guilty so where's the grounds for removing him from the very position he used, maintained and abused in such a way as to get him in court in the first place?

 

It also makes me wonder how people such as myself, who happen to be a bit short of millions right now, would fare in similar circumstance...

 

We need a lawyer in here, but I assume that a settlement (with money or otherwise) in a criminal court would only be possible with a guilty-plea of the defendant, right?



#644 jjcale

jjcale
  • Member

  • 7,307 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 02 August 2014 - 12:27

Seems about right ... let those who say they were harmed sue in civil court ..... where this would have been but for the quirk that Gribowsky's bank was taxpayer owned/backed so he was a so called public official. 

 

As I said repeatedly, all of them over in Germany are as dirty as each other re the way the F1 rights were dealt with.... BE and Max might well deserve jail time for what they did years ago but this latest event does not compare to that IMHO and I think some folks were hoping that he would suffer in this case because they are mad about what he did with Max years ago.

 

An also, as I told my friend TriumphST .... CVC will go before BE does cause even with all this I dont think they have the power to sack him. .... though I tip my hat to TriumphST for spotting some big points long in advance anyone else that I know of :up:

 

I also still dont think the issue for BE was just about taxes ... as I said before the structure that he has set up is way too complicated just to hide from the taxman..... but I dont claim to know what it is that is being hidden ... If I did I would step up to collect my $50m :p

 

Oh ...and btw.... I am only speculating .... nothing Ive said should be taken as accusing anyone of any specific thing  ;)



#645 HP

HP
  • Member

  • 14,381 posts
  • Joined: October 99

Posted 02 August 2014 - 15:46

Very strange that you can settle a criminal case in Germany; thought that was only possible in the US.

Not strange really. I don't know the situation in this case, but I do know that sometimes, one country needs to adapt a law from another, more powerful country else it gets some extra tariffs slapped on them.

 

Again, I am not saying that this is the case here, but I do know that the German fiscus has bought CD's with illegal obtained data from Swiss banks on rich Germans who engaged in tax evasion. The legally questionable thing is that they paid quite a large sum of money for data obtained illegally (according to German and Swiss laws). The response from the relevant German authorities was that the benefit far outweigh the legal issues (or they can get justice by ignoring certain laws). I can see their point, but when a government agency takes things into their own hands disregarding legislation, or a police warrant, then I see that this undermines the state in the long term. IMO dangerous gamble that. At the same time, I can see why they agree on a settlement with BE. Same reasoning, the law doesn't matter as long as we get justice.

 

However if that deal goes through, the question for me is then what is this all about? The deal according to the link provided talks about the tax fiscus getting 100 million dollars, plus the BayernLB getting 25 million dollars. However the BayernLB wants 400 million dollars from Bernie.Something doesn't compute for me if the bank is willing to agree to such a deal..



#646 spacekid

spacekid
  • Member

  • 2,678 posts
  • Joined: April 11

Posted 02 August 2014 - 17:54

I know I'm in a minority of 1, but I've been rooting for Bernie to wriggle out of this one. The man is a force of nature, and keeps me entertained. Besides which, since when did banks engender such sympathy?

It seems this will be resolved by one very rich person transferring non-liquid assets that exist on a balance sheet he probably won't notice anyway to another rich person/bank/whatever who probably won't notice the difference on their balance sheet either. Some lawyers trouser actual cash for all their hassle.

None of this has any bearing on anything important in the world.

#647 Nemo1965

Nemo1965
  • Member

  • 2,428 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 02 August 2014 - 18:02

I know I'm in a minority of 1, but I've been rooting for Bernie to wriggle out of this one. The man is a force of nature, and keeps me entertained. Besides which, since when did banks engender such sympathy?

It seems this will be resolved by one very rich person transferring non-liquid assets that exist on a balance sheet he probably won't notice anyway to another rich person/bank/whatever who probably won't notice the difference on their balance sheet either. Some lawyers trouser actual cash for all their hassle.

None of this has any bearing on anything important in the world.

 

I understand your reasoning, Spacekid, but something HAS changed in the banking world. I have some friends who work in the financial world and they tell me that for the first time in their professional lives - stretching to thirty years or so - banks in Germany and the Netherlands are really checking if the money transferred or to be transferred is legit. A nuisance for the good-willed people, but a block for the frauds, if you want.

 

The fact that Ecclestone would not be able to wiggle out of this would mean he finally gets the lid on his fingers. Since the 1990's he has stopped working FOR F1 and only started working for his ex-?(wife) and daughters. It would please me to see another example of someone who had money and thought he was intouchable be severely disappointed, even in the latter stage of life.

 

In my view that is important, for me in my lifetime, at least.



#648 bourbon

bourbon
  • Member

  • 7,265 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 02 August 2014 - 18:05

Bravo, Bernie.



#649 DarthWillie

DarthWillie
  • Member

  • 1,750 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 02 August 2014 - 20:30

So you can buy yourself out of jail if you got enough money. Doesn't sound like like justice to me

#650 jestaudio

jestaudio
  • Member

  • 998 posts
  • Joined: December 13

Posted 02 August 2014 - 20:33

So you can buy yourself out of jail if you got enough money. Doesn't sound like like justice to me

No surprise, one rule for them and the rule of law for the rest of us