Uilleam 5,919 Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 An extraordinary verdict. The jury must have been comprised, majorly, of simpletons. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 not doing due diligence for starters. How ? Whyte has been cleared of wrongdoing, which means the sale was legal. What would you prove in going after someone for lack of due diligence ? Indeed, trying to produce a case for lack of due diligence would be nigh on impossible. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete 2,499 Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 Does this have any implications on RFC? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
union 0 Posted June 6, 2017 Author Share Posted June 6, 2017 The most telling thing is that the defence presented no evidence, DF let the prosecution win the case for him. Will he ever have easier days in court again. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walterbear 557 Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 That's simply not true. There's no way a guilty verdict would mean that any assets would belong to oldco. If you fraudulently buy an asset you haven't actually bought it. Ownership remains with the seller or in this case the liquidator. If I buy your car using fraudulent means and I'm discovered my 'ownership' is invalid. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
compo 6,930 Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 As I said from before the trial I always thought it would be not guilty because all the jury is made up of 15 men and women who probably know he-haw about fraud or money matters or business matters so Mr Findlay did a good defence of his client by letting the prosecution bamboozle the jury . 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walterbear 557 Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 Does this have any implications on RFC? It could do depending on who rightfully owns Ibrox. If you recall Whyte thought green stung him. Whyte would not have been able to have ever claimed ownership if he was convicted Suspect that story may unfold but that's just my view. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 (edited) If you fraudulently buy an asset you haven't actually bought it. Ownership remains with the seller or in this case the liquidator. If I buy your car using fraudulent means and I'm discovered my 'ownership' is invalid. Why would it be the liquidator ? If Whyte fraudulently bought RFC and the sale deemed illegal then it would make more sense that it reverts to SDM as the original seller. The liquidator only came into play after a subsequent sale. At the very least, using your analogy, you would expect SDM to be given the option to retain the assets from the illegal sale. You can't say "he bought this illegally so we are going to pass it to the guys who are currently dealing with the mess he created". Either way, it is absolutely NOT "inevitable" that a guilty verdict would have the assets revert to the liquidator to then allow HMRC to try to grab them. Edited June 6, 2017 by craig 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacK1950 2,357 Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 Only thing I can say is all the crooks are queuing up to have Findlay(the new Beltrami) defending them. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barebear 37 Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 So it looks like we are still several years away from an end to this game, and therefore several more years away from the blockbuster movie with David Murray played by Ian Beale and Craig Whyte played by Ken Dodd!! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.