Ex-Rangers administrators David Whitehouse and Paul Clark in £21m settlement

[compo 7,055]

41 minutes ago, Bill said:

Sturgeon's Scotland in a nutshell. How can you possibly have a malicious prosecution without a criminal offence being 

Will people who have been charged with a crime maybe spent time on remand then get to court only to be found not guilty get compensation for having their good name blackened I would imagine there might be more cases for compensation in the pipeline 

[Scott7 6,018]

1 hour ago, Bill said:

Sturgeon's Scotland in a nutshell. How can you possibly have a malicious prosecution without a criminal offence being committed.

Guessing that malicious prosecution is a civil wrong and not a crime.

 

Misconduct in Public Office mibbees.

 

We’ll know better when the current LA makes his statement in the SP. Or perhaps not.

[der Berliner 3,747]

19 hours ago, the gunslinger said:

no where near and BDO will just swallow it up. 

I doubt they`ll swallow all of the 58m they want and the rest will probably still be more what is needed to pay the debts?

[the gunslinger 3,366]

2 minutes ago, der Berliner said:

I doubt they`ll swallow all of the 58m they want and the rest will probably still be more what is needed to pay the debts?

I am sure they will find a way and at one point the debts were 170 million. 

[der Berliner 3,747]

2 minutes ago, the gunslinger said:

I am sure they will find a way and at one point the debts were 170 million. 

I`ll cite the last article on that (via FF)

 

Quote

THE tax bill owed by the company which formerly owned Rangers has been cut by a further £3.1million

The tax authorities initially claimed £94.4million but that sum now stands at £64.5 million

The previous estimated figure was around £67million, following a write off of around £5.2m last December.

And the figure could still drop further with liquidators BDO claiming they have had a "number of positive discussions with HMRC in the last few months" with both parties agreeing "the next steps in seeking to resolve the remaining elements of the claim".

In a creditors' report yesterday, BDO, the accountancy firm handling the liquidation of RFC 2012, said that a legal case against the former administrators of the business is moving forward with a hearing set for May.

About £51 million of the tax authorities' claim is being disputed by liquidators - with the bulk of that relating to the use of employee benefit trusts (EBTs)

That issue, known as the "Big Tax Case", was seen as a significant hurdle to Sir David Murray, the club's former chairman, finding a buyer.

He eventually sold it for a token £1 to Craig Whyte in May 2011, who put the business into administration in February 2012


Attempts by administrators Duff & Phelps to negotiate a CVA, which would have offered creditors some form of return on their debts, failed with largest creditor HMRC voting against.

The business went into liquidation with the assets bought by a consortium led by Charles Green.

The latest reduction was from a claim concerning National Insurance contributions and PAYE which were not paid during Mr Whyte's ownership.

The bill was originally almost £13.4 million but has been trimmed to less than £10.3 million.

The liquidators agree that this sum and close to £3.1 million for the separate small tax case, relating to payment arrangements for the players Craig Moore, Tore Andre Flo and Ronald de Boer, is due.

Still in dispute is £48.9 million relating to EBTs, £1 million for the small tax case and £1.3 million of inheritance tax.

The update from BDO also shows a further £1.7 million was paid to HMRC in the 12 months to the end of October. So far the revenue has received close to £4.5 million from the liquidators.

A spokesman for HMRC told The Times: "The Supreme Court ruled in HMRC's favour in the case against Rangers' tax avoidance scheme.

"We continue to have a long-standing claim with the liquidators to recover the money due to taxpayers as a result of the [Supreme Court] judgment."

The BDO report adds: "The joint liquidators had sought detailed explanations regarding certain aspects of the strategy implemented by the joint administrators during the administration.

"Given the highly sensitive nature of the proceedings at this stage, we are unable to provide any more detail in respect of the claim."

12/12 2020

[der Berliner 3,747]

From that thread: Centralbear

 

Quote

BDO are still contesting the "grossing up" method HMRC used, insisting instead it should be on net basis, this would likely approximately half the current £48m HMRC still claim.

If BDO are successful a bill finalised at £24m would have left us sellable to a bona fide buyer instead if into the hands of a fraudster.

So we lost a first team squad, conservatively put at £30m.

Loss of domestic income for years 2012-17 was was easily £80m, in fact we only returned to 2011 turnover amounts in 2018. And that's all before considering any European income, so depending on our performance I'd say 2012-17 we lost income anywhere between £100m - £200m in turnover

And who benefitted with 9 titles (8.75 anyway) and unrestricted access to CL qualifying annually.

It's only for the fact they fckd that up more often than not that they would have been over the hill and never to be seen again. Appointing Neil Lennon really has been a cloud with a silver lining.

 

[ian1964 10,724]

Scottish Tories call for Rangers malicious prosecution to be led by non-Scot judge

A PUBLIC inquiry into the malicious prosecution of two administrators of Rangers FC must be led by someone from outside Scotland, the Tories have urged. 

Murdo Fraser, the Scottish Conservatives' finance spokesman, argued for fellow MSPs to back calls for an independent public inquiry into the "unprecedented" scandal which saw David Whitehouse and Paul Clark unfairly targeted by prosecutors. 

The pair were the administrators of Rangers after financial woes saw the club collapse nearly a decade ago.

The Lord Advocate, James Wolffe, admitted the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) had pursued a malicious prosecution against the two men but appeared to walk back that statement in Parliament today.

Mr Fraser said: "This was not simple human error or an obscure legal mistake. Our prosecution service has admitted that, acting with malice, they sought to throw innocent men behind bars and destroy their reputations.

 

“Nothing could be more deplorable than the state seeking to imprison citizens they know to be innocent.

“That is why the only acceptable outcome is for the SNP to agree to establish a judge-led inquiry with full power to get to the bottom of what happened.

“Given the central role of Lord Mulholland as the previous Lord Advocate, the public would also expect a judge from outwith Scotland, most likely from one of the other home nations, to be appointed."

In an apology to Parliament today, the Lord Advocate said: "They should not have been prosecuted and as the current Lord Advocate and head of the system of criminal prosecutions, I apologised unreservedly that they had been. I reiterate that unreserved apology publicly to Mr Clark and Mr Whitehouse today."

But the Lord Advocate said that despite the affair being a malicious prosecution, “no individual had malice in the popular sense of a spiteful motive”.

 

Mr Whitehouse issued a statement after the Lord Advocate's appearance in Holyrood earlier today. 

He said: "Never before has the government’s top law officer had to admit to ‘indefensible’ actions and ‘serious failure’. I welcome his apology to me and my colleague Paul Clark but as many MSPs pointed out today in their chorus of condemnation, that when something goes seriously wrong who is at fault?

“The Lord Advocate said no-one acted out of spite but the fact remains that it was people within Crown Office that took a series of decisions that resulted in us being hauled out of our homes, falsely accused of crimes, incarcerated and prosecuted with malice. Those people should be held accountable.

A spokesman for the COPFS said: "The Lord Advocate told the Scottish Parliament that the Crown will support a process of inquiry once all the related matters have been dealt with.

"The form of the inquiry would fall to be decided upon at the appropriate time."

The Scottish Government would not be drawn on the question of what a public inquiry should look like. A spokeswoman said: "We agree that a judge-led inquiry should be held into the events surrounding these prosecutions. 

“Until other related legal proceedings are concluded, it would be inappropriate to say more about its timing or nature.” 

 

https://www.glasgowtimes.co.uk/news/19077468.scottish-tories-call-rangers-malicious-prosecution-led-non-scot-judge/

[compo 7,055]

I often wonder in this little country who judges the judges who do they answer to I was once on a jury at Glasgow high court when his lordship fell asleep a court official moved swiftly to give him a nudge but not before he was heard snoring like a drunk yet that trial continued. 

[ian1964 10,724]

 

[JohnMc 2,765]

I've held off commenting on this as aspects of it have puzzled me and I think we all have to tread carefully for our own and Frankie's sake. That said if, as is being reported, this was a "malicious" prosecution instigated by the previous Lord Advocate, then I'm not sure we're fully grasping the implications of that. The Lord Advocate, as well as being a political appointment, is literally the most senior law officer in Scotland ultimately responsible for all prosecutions. The lengths and expense that's going into keeping this from being aired publicly in open court is troubling. For the current Lord Advocate to make the statement he made yesterday is an astonishing admission. At best we have total incompetence, at worst we have corruption at a very senior level. So, you have to ask yourself who benefits from an attempted criminal prosecution against those involved with the administration and buy out of Rangers. I'm no fan of Duff and Phelps or Charles Green, but what has happened here is disgraceful. It will be interesting to see what more comes out of this and if there is an appetite politically, legally or from the media to punish those involved in this. 

How this isn't now a criminal matter is beyond me.