The Find Madeleine Fund

Madeleine McCann's parents say they will never give up hope she will return one day

The couple shared a special New Year message with their supporters

News
ByAsha Patel

12:27, 4 JAN 2023Updated14:04, 4 JAN 2023

https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/local-news/madeleine-mccanns-parents-share-vow-7993051

Looks like they have actually missed the deadline this year, unless Companies House are way behind with their processing & this just pings up automatically.

Did you miss Sharon's response posted on 30th December 2022?

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t15163p125-the-find-madeleine-fund#462177

They could have applied for a 3 month extention which would give them until 31st March to file the accounts without incurring the penalty. They haven't even bothered to do that.

Received this e-mail this morning..

Companies In The UK - Company Change

MADELEINE'S FUND: LEAVING NO STONE UNTURNED LIMITED

You have been sent this email because you are following MADELEINE'S FUND:

LEAVING NO STONE UNTURNED LIMITED (06248215)

MADELEINE'S FUND: LEAVING NO STONE UNTURNED LIMITED just published the following document:

Document type: AA

Document description: Annual Accounts

Comments: Accounts for a small company made up to 2022-03-31

Published: 8 January 2023

View the full details of these changes at the Companies In The UK website
To stop following this company go to Companies You Follow

Contact Centre

So, all will be revealed in 10 day's time.

MADELEINE'S FUND: LEAVING NO STONE UNTURNED LIMITED







I can't open the document at the moment, maybe it's pending publication. I'll have another bash later.

Minor update..



Might not be available .... it ain't

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/06248215/filing-history

08 Jan 2023

Accounts for a small company made up to 31 March 2022 This document is being processed and will be available in 10 days.

Accounts are now showing. They did get them in on time, with Companies House stamp showing 29/12/22.
 
Pretty much the same as the year before with total assets up to £970k (from £931k) mainly due to dividends received £17k and revaluation of shares £24k.
 
£3498 from the bewk.
 
Legal costs £6695 ‘were paid by the fund in relation to a libel action in Portugal brought by the directors, G & KM. The action was determined post year end by a decision of the ECHR.’
 
Obviously the legal costs that we were promised the fund would never be used for if my memory serves!

Silentscope wrote:But according to Jerry Lawton of the Daily Star, this has all now changed.

(Gerry Lawton was later sacked.)

https://www.dailystar.co.uk/authors/jerry-lawton/



And to stop it before it begins, the editor of the Daily Star, Jon Clark, is NOT one and the same Jon ClarkE - he of the Olive Press.

Restricted funds of £637,890 and cash of only £82,322

What are the restrictions on the fund?
What is the fixed asset investment?
Do the restrictions allow for the funds to be tied up in this investment?

I don't know but .... the Fund vowed and declared that when all avenues were exhausted in the quest to 'Find Madeleine', any residue would be spread around charities in support of missing children and child abuse - that was the transparent pledge.

Well, the quest to Find Madeleine - the search, was exhausted when the balloon went up on the night of Thursday 3rd May 2007.

Get out of that one Shylock!

Madeleine's Fund - Review & Investigation of Accounts Exclusive to mccannfiles.com

Original Source: MCCANN FILES: MONDAY 20 FEBRUARY 2012

Enid O'Dowd Exclusive to mccannfiles.com



Enid O'Dowd takes an in depth look into the setting up and subsequent running of Madeleine's Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited

Exclusive to mccannfiles.com

A review of the background to setting up the limited company Madeleine's Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned and a forensic examination of the company accounts, 20 February 2012
A review of the background to setting up the limited company Madeleine's Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned and a forensic examination of the company accounts

by Enid O'Dowd FCA


The case of missing Madeleine McCann is unlike any other missing person case. Her parents Kate and Gerry McCann set up a limited company (Madeleine's Fund) less than two weeks after she went missing, and engaged many, mainly legal, professionals, to further their search for her.

This article looks at the history of the Fund, what the audited accounts reveal and the professionals engaged, using material from the book Madeleine and from independent sources.

Madeleine was reported missing by her parents Kate and Gerry McCann on the evening of Thursday May 3, 2007. On 15 May, just 11 full days later, the limited company Madeleine's Fund: leaving No Stone Unturned was incorporated.

The sad truth is that such Funds, Foundations or whatever one chooses to call them are normally set up after a tragic event as a tribute to the person's memory. Amy Winehouse's father has set up a Foundation to provide support and counselling to those seeking help with drink and drug addictions. In October 2002 at the memorial service of murdered teenager Milly Dowler, her parents announced Milly's Fund. This fund was later subsumed into the Suzy Lamplugh Trust set up in 1986 by the parents of missing estate agent Suzy Lamplugh, whose body has never been found. In 2003, Australian teenager Daniel Morcombe went missing. Two years later, his parents set up a Foundation to continue the search and to educate the public. Daniel's remains were found late last year and a man has been charged with his murder.

The book informs us that the limited company arose out of an offer to help 'from a paralegal based in Leicester, via a colleague of Gerry's.' This man worked for the International Family Law Group (IFLG), a firm based in central London.

Kate says 'it was difficult to know what they could do (and anyone in her position would agree) but we decided it would be worth meeting them to discuss the possibilities.' The paralegal accompanied by an unnamed barrister flew to Portugal on the afternoon of Friday May 11. They met that day and had two further sessions with the lawyers over the course of the weekend.

We are told that the barrister, having inspected the proximity of the Tapas bar to their holiday apartment, assured them that their behaviour (in making periodic checks on their children) could not be deemed negligent and was 'well within the bounds of reasonable parenting.' The lawyers also advised about applying to have Madeleine made a ward of court, such status being helpful as the 'courts could make orders to reveal information not otherwise available that might be relevant in our case.'

In the context of the financial help that was then being offered, Kate says the IFLG paralegal advised them to set up a 'fighting fund'. The IFLG would devise the objectives of the fund and instruct a leading charity law firm Bates Wells Braithwaite (BWB) to draw up Articles of Association. The use of the term 'fighting' is odd. Who were the McCanns fighting? Whether 'fighting' is the paralegal's word or Kate's paraphrase is unclear.

It is perhaps strange that the IFLG paralegal, expert in the complex area of international family abductions, would promote the idea of setting up a limited company so convincingly that the McCanns agreed. At the time of the first meeting between the McCanns and the two legal visitors, Madeleine had been missing for only one week.

And, most significantly, Kate says on p.296 of Chapter 19 entitled 'Action on three fronts' writing about the time period autumn 2007, 'gradually my outlook was growing more positive and I was beginning to get past my early certainty that Madeleine must have been taken by a paedophile and murdered.'

If Kate believed that her daughter had been murdered at the time of meeting the legal pair, why would she agree to setting up a Fund to find Madeleine?

Further, in Chapter 19 she tells us, 'by October...we were able to concentrate on our top priority: finding Madeleine...so far beyond following up the odd piece of information outside Portugal, we had not gone down this road...we had been reassured that after a shaky start, the police were doing everything that could be done.'

So if the Fund, set up in record time and presumably at considerable expense, was to find Madeleine, why did it, as Kate herself tells us, do very little for the first four months of its existence other than to collect money and follow up the odd piece of information outside Portugal?

Interestingly the book doesn't mention the names of the paralegal and the barrister who spent the weekend in Portugal to advise them, presumably at their own expense. Her book names and praises other professionals who helped her at different times after her daughter vanished; for example trauma psychologist Alan Pike and Carter-Ruck lawyers Adam Tudor and Isobel Hudson who she says on p.289 'continue to do a vast amount of work for us, most of it without payment, most of it quietly behind the scenes.'

On Sunday May 13 the IFLG issued a press brief release with Ann Thomas, managing partner as the contact person. It merely said that 'last week' they and barrister Michael Nicholls QC had been instructed to act for the McCanns...and that details of how contributions could be made to help get Madeleine back would be made available 'in the next couple of days.'

Presumably then, Mr Nicholls was the barrister who reassured the McCanns about their 'reasonable' parenting. According to the website maintained by his Chambers his principal areas of practice are:

'International and domestic family law and medical ethics, including jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement, conflicts of law, child abduction, international relocation, private children’s cases, contempts, families and the media (freedom of expression and press injunctions) and disputes about medical treatment.'

It is unclear why his particular expertise warranted instruction in a missing child case where there was no issue of family abduction. Apart from his family law experience he also had expertise in media (freedom of expression and press injunctions) but at that time the media was totally supportive of the McCanns.

The press release announcing the appointment of the IFLG contained four names each with a title, one of which was Richard Jones Family Law Executive. Perhaps he is the persuasive paralegal at the Portugal meetings? Mr Jones is not currently included as a staff member of IFLG on their website.

The IFLG was apparently set up not long before Madeleine went missing. The website does not say when. However, since co-founder David Hodson was, according to his website career details working in Sydney until 2005, the IFLG cannot have been founded until 2005 at the earliest.

BWB could not have been contacted before Monday morning May 14 when their offices opened – they had the company incorporated on Tuesday May 15.

A Freedom of Information (FOI) request to the Charity Commission revealed several emails, telephone calls and a telephone conference between BWB and the Charity Commission about the possibility of charity status, for the then unincorporated company, between Monday afternoon May 14 and Tuesday May 15.

BWB emailed Alice Holt, Head of Legal Services (Status and Advice) at 9.39 pm on Monday evening with draft documents for the company as a charity. The email stated there was to be a press launch of the Foundation on Wednesday May 16 and that they awaited instructions on how the founders proposed to operate.

The minutes of the telephone conference held between BWB and the Charity Commission on the morning of Tuesday May 15 record that Alice Holt would look at revising the draft document to a form more acceptable to the Commission. The minutes also record that Commission official Kenneth Dibble was concerned that the press conference set for the next day might send out confused messages to the public unless it was settled what the fund could and could not be used for.

At 1.10 pm on May 15 the Charity Commission received an email from BWB saying their clients were likely to go the ordinary company route rather than pursue charity status. When that email was received Ms Holt was just finalising her promised revisions to the documents submitted to her the previous day. She sent her revised document anyway at 1.28 pm. To meet the Fund launch date of May 16, the McCanns had obviously decided to abandon the apparently hopeful charity negotiations in order to meet the deadline for same day company incorporation. Documents must be filed by 3pm for the company to be incorporated on that day.

It is odd that the McCanns committed themselves to a launch date, set it would appear, before BWB were engaged. In an email to the Charity Commission, BWB refer to being instructed 'this afternoon' (i.e. Monday May 14). What difference would a couple of days delay have made? And it is clear from the documentation that the Charity Commission officials were helpful, and that it was likely that charity status could have been obtained with only minor delay with a little compromise by the McCanns.

Charity status is valuable because it gives an organisation credibility with the public, grant making bodies and local government, making it easier to obtain funds. It also gives the organisation tax advantages. Individuals, sole traders and companies can also benefit from giving to registered charities. Higher rate tax payers may be able to claim a tax refund. Under the Gift Aid scheme a donation is treated as if standard rate tax (20%) has been deducted and this is equivalent to an extra 25p in the £ for the charity. For donations between 6.4.2008 and 5.4.2011 the government gave an extra 3p in the £ supplement. Individuals can also have charitable donations deducted from their salaries, and this is tax efficient as their income tax is calculated on their salary after the donation. See www.hmrc.gov.uk/charities-donors/ for more information on the benefits to an organisation of charity status.

Charities must give an annual report and accounts to the Charity Commission and make these documents available to the public on request. There are also rules relating to fundraising. The trustees (directors) cannot normally receive salary, fees or contracts from the charity and nor can their spouses or other close family members. These requirements are not onerous or unreasonable. Having hired charity experts BWB on the advice of the paralegal, it is surprising that Kate did not let them have a day or two more to explore charity status. And it is surprising that the McCanns have not apparently revisited this issue.

In Chapter 9 in which Kate describes her activities of May 14 she does not mention any dealings with BWB who must have worked very hard that day. Nor does she mention dealing with the paralegal or anyone else at IFLG. There must have been urgent emails and phone calls that day from her advisors. She just states that charity status would not be forthcoming as it was deemed that the 'public benefit' test would not be met, and adds that it (the Fund) 'was set up with great care and due diligence by experts in their field.'

It would be more accurate to state it was set up with great haste and with no apparent reason for that haste.

Rather than going into detail about the busy day she must have had dealing with her lawyers, and why she made the decision to proceed with incorporation and abandon the negotiations for charity status, she talks of going for a run, her first since Madeleine went missing!

She mentions trying to focus on the imminent launch of Madeleine's fund but doesn't say when it was to be or explain why a limited company was required. A press launch can be called at short notice and given the high profile of the case at that time; it would have got a good media turnout however short the notice was. And again, it probably would not have been a problem to get another celebrity at short notice if the one booked to launch the Fund on May 16, Martin Johnson the rugby player, could not meet a rescheduled date.

And after they incorporated the company in 24 hours, BWB applied for British and European trade marks on 18 May 2007 and was given the reference 2456061. These trademarks protected fundraising, internet and print promotions. Again this action was unprecedented at this very early stage in a missing person case.

Review of the Memorandum of Association and Articles of Association filed in May 2007 reveals in 3.1.3 that one of the three objects of the company is to provide support, including financial assistance to Madeleine's family (my italics). Now this could mean uncles, aunts, parents and any blood relations.

This object was not included in the draft submitted to the Charity Commission on May 14. In fact the draft objects were different to the ones actually used for the company as incorporated. The objects in the draft were general, relating to missing persons and the education of the public and the promotion of sound administration of the law. An accompanying note from BWB headed 'proposed activities' did state that initially practically all the donations received would be used for the search for Madeleine, and that substantial funds would not be forthcoming if donations were not restricted in the first instance to her.

The objects of the company as incorporated are specific to Madeleine McCann, with a final object to pursue other cases when the objects relating to her case are fulfilled.

5.2.1 permits payments to directors as beneficiaries and 5.2.4 permits payment of rent where appropriate to directors for premises. Therefore, if the McCanns or family members used a room in their home to work for the Fund, the payment of rent from the Fund would be permitted if they should want it and the Board agreed.

The quorum for Board meetings is one third of the current Board membership. This makes the current quorum two, as there are now six directors. Three directors are family members. The Chairman has a casting vote. John McCann was Chairman until he resigned in July 2010. It is unclear who the current Chairman is. If Brian Kennedy (Kate McCann's uncle) - who was one of the original directors - took over as Chairman, then the McCann family has a majority at board meetings by virtue of the Chairman's casting vote.

The conflict of interest policy (Articles nos 37 and 38) is interesting.

It says (37.1) that directors with a personal interest in an upcoming vote must declare that interest, and (37.2) withdraw from the relevant part of the meeting, and (37.3) not be counted in the quorum for that part of the meeting relating to their personal interest and (37.4) have no vote on the issue affecting them. That is proper governance.

However no 38 states that 'no director shall be regarded as having a conflict of interest solely because he or she is also eligible to receive the support of the Foundation.'

A reasonable person would conclude there is a clear conflict of interest for a family member director if decisions are to be taken on payments of legal fees, rent for part of his/her private house for use as an 'office', and other costs not directly related to the search for Madeleine. The draft documents sent to the Charity Commission only contained no.37 so had those documents been adopted, the McCanns and family members would not have been able to attend or vote on issues regarding certain proposed payments to themselves.

Interestingly a revised Memorandum and Articles of Association was filed in Companies House in December 2011. This deleted the object to provide support including financial assistance to Madeleine's family. This particular object had attracted unfavourable comment in particular from internet bloggers. The motive for deleting this objective more than four years later is unclear. If the Board felt this minority criticism of the object was adversely affecting fundraising, it would presumably have changed it earlier.

On p.138 Kate says there needed to be independent people on the Board as well as John McCann, who is Gerry's brother, and her uncle Brian Kennedy, and at that time she had no idea how important these independent people would be when later there was 'massive scrutiny' of the Fund.

The composition of the Board varied during the first year. At the most there were nine directors meaning the quorum was three. Two were family members; three were friends – Esther McVey, Jon Corner and Dr Peter Hubner. It is not known whether Michael Linnett, a retired accountant based in Leicester or P J Tomlinson (who resigned on 28.12.2007) were friends of the McCanns. Friends can of course be very independent, but the optics of having a majority of family and friends on the Board is not desirable. Gerry and Kate became directors on November 12, 2008. Board numbers were reduced to six, following the resignations of Dr Hubner, Dr Skehan and John McCann in 2010.

Returning to the decision to set up a limited company, nowhere does Kate mention the more logical option of dealing with the donations coming in – to open a new bank account in Madeleine's name, or in the joint names of Madeleine and herself. Such an account could, if desired, have two signatures, her own and an independent signatory such as a solicitor or an accountant.

This could have been done quickly at no cost. Down the line, when the situation was clearer, another structure could have been considered.

In fact it is likely there already was a deposit account in Madeleine's name as many parents open up an account in their child's name as a place for depositing gifts from family and friends, and later to encourage the saving of pocket money. In addition, the Child Trust Fund scheme, introduced in September 2002 by the government and which provided a small amount to kick start these special accounts, could also mean there was an existing bank account in Madeleine's name.

Perhaps, the McCanns, who at the time of the meetings with the lawyers, must have been very distressed, meekly accepted the advice of the persuasive paralegal, and gave him the go-ahead. But the McCanns are clearly intelligent professionals and even given the sad situation, it is hard to understand why they accepted the advice.

The cost of getting a top legal firm to set up a limited company would surely have been of concern to them as the donations coming in were for finding Madeleine and not for lawyers. The legal pair would presumably have informed them of the ongoing compliance costs of operating a limited company such as the audit fee. The audit fees for the four years for which accounts are available total £31,585. You would have expected some comment from Kate in Chapter 9 after the lawyers had left, wondering if she was doing the right thing in spending the public's donations to set up a limited company.

The money already coming in would have been in cash, or cheques made out to the McCanns so there would have been no problem using the money to fund the search. By May 17 a bank account in the company name was open and, most surprisingly, auditors to the company had been appointed.

The Charity Commission in its FOI reply supplied a printout of the official Madeleine website (http://www.findmadeleine.com/) at 17 May 2007 giving information on the Fund including auditor details. Now the directors of a company appoint the auditors. At that date there were three directors, two family members John McCann and Brian Kennedy, and Gerry McCann's immediate boss Dr Doug Skehan. It is quite possible that IFLG or BWB recommended these auditors to the directors but that does not explain the rush to appoint them. It is normal for a company to meet with proposed auditors to agree exactly what they are to do (sometimes auditors may provide other services to the company), to agree fees and to draw up a letter of engagement. It is very unlikely in the time that any meeting with the auditors took place. The first meeting of the board according to Kate was due sometime in the week beginning May 20 which would appear to be the earliest time this non urgent matter could have been discussed.

The auditors appointed were haysmacintyre in London WC1, a 24 partner firm with 150 staff. It is perhaps surprising that the McCanns did not choose a local firm. It is usually more convenient to have a local firm and can be cheaper as a local firm normally has lower overheads than a central London firm. Keeping audit costs down means more money for the search so even though the firm haysmacintyre was possibly highly recommended by the lawyers, one would have thought that this decision did not need to be rushed. Auditing the accounts of a company like Madeleine's Fund would not particularly challenge any qualified person, so there would be no need to take on a large firm with special expertise.

Kate does not mention this firm in the book or the reason why they were chosen and why so quickly. Many new companies would not appoint auditors until later in the financial year though it is good practice to appoint at an early stage to have advice on setting up accounting systems with proper internal controls. But two days after incorporation is fast by any criteria. If an existing business decided to change its status to that of limited company then the accountants to the unincorporated business would normally become auditors to the limited company and would probably have set it up as part of their role. But this wasn’t the case here.

The official Madeleine McCann website says in the section about the Madeleine Fund:

'The majority of the fund money has been and continues to be spent on investigative work to help find Madeleine. Additionally money continues to be spent on the wider awareness campaign – reminding people that Madeleine is still missing and to remain vigilant. None of the directors have taken any money from the fund as remuneration.

Anyone who wishes further information with regards to the financial details of Madeleine's Fund and its professional advisors please refer to the accounts filed at Companies House.'

Kate says of the company on p.138 that 'from the outset everyone agreed that, despite the costs involved, it must be run to the highest standards of transparency.'

Fine words but the reality is different.

Looking at the information provided by the audited accounts as the website advises is interesting, but frustrating in the case of the years to March 31 2009, March 31 2010 and March 31 2011. The first accounts were made up from incorporation May 15 2007 to March 31 2008 and show an operating surplus of £1,031,065.

A page of analysis of expenditure was filed for the accounts to March 2008 which is not a statutory requirement but is good practice for such a company which is a 'not for profit company' according to the official website http://www.findmadeleine.com/.

I put the following question to the Press office at HMRC (Her Majesty Revenue & Customs)

'Has the term 'not for profit' any statutory meaning? It seems to be a catch all phrase used by organisations that may (or may not!) have very worthy aims and objectives.'

And the reply –

'It has no meaning for HMRC, only charities and CASCs (Community Amateur Sports Clubs) benefit from tax beneficial arrangements.'

So this term 'not for profit' which is widely used by companies/organisations that are not normal trading companies has no meaning for the UK tax authorities. While the term is generally used with no intention to mislead, it clearly is a term that should not automatically be taken at face value.

The additional page of expenditure information raised more questions than it answered. I put the questions and comments below to auditors haysmacintyre. When I raised these issues with the auditors, the March 2011 accounts were not yet available and hence the questions only relate to the accounts for 2008, 2009 and 2010.

To be continued..

I don't understand the finer points of charities and foundations, but in my ignorance, I thought the same.

Semantics?
 
These would not be ‘legal defence costs’.
 
……….The fund’s trustees said they had decided not to allow the money to be used to pay lawyers’ fees, despite receiving expert advice that it would have been legal.
“The fund’s directors realised there is not only a legal answer, but recognised too the spirit which underlies the generous donations to Madeleine’s fund,” Esther McVey, one of the fund’s directors, told a news conference.
“For this reason, the fund’s directors have decided not to pay for Gerry and Kate’s legal defence costs.”
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-girl-idUKL0637885520070912

This was from 2017.  ‘Huge legal bill”
 
We obviously don’t know whether GA ever paid the €500,000 plus interest to the Mc’s in the first place in order for it to need to be returned and this is completely aside from any legal costs. It also says any appeal to the European Courts would be ‘too expensive’, so a damn site more than £7k then!
 
Madeleine McCann’s parents lose court appeal to silence cop who claims they covered up daughter’s death

BY: GERARD COUZENS 16:41, 31 JAN 2017
Getty

Kate McCann and her husband Gerry McCann may now face a huge legal bill over the case against former police chief Goncalo Amaral
A well-placed source close to the case said the decision had gone against the McCanns and they would now face a massive legal bill
The McCanns have lost their appeal to Portugal’s highest court over ex-police chief Goncalo Amaral’s book claiming they covered up their daughter’s death.

Portuguese Supreme Court judges met this morning in Lisbon to resolve the couple’s fight against a lower court’s decision last April to reverse their 2015 libel win against the former detective.

The hearing took place in private and an official public decision is not set to be sent to lawyers acting for the litigants until later in the week.

But well-placed sources close to the long-running case said this afternoon the decision had gone against the McCanns and they would now face a massive legal bill.

The McCanns will now have to pay him 500,000 Euros (£430,000) plus interest, and his legal costs.

Judges decided that Goncalo Amaral’s “right to freedom of expression” was worthy of greater protection under Portuguese law that the “right to honour” of the McCanns.

Reuters
Goncalo Amaral
Former police inspector Goncalo Amaral
The judges ruled Goncalo Amaral’s “exercise of his freedom of expression was not considered abusive” and “was within admissible limits in a democratic and open society, which excludes the illegality of possible damage to the honour of the McCanns.”

The decision is a major milestone in Gerry and Kate McCann’s eight-year fight over a book written by Amaral, who led the initial hunt when then-three-year-old Madeleine vanished from their Algarve holiday apartment in May 2007.

Kate and Gerry axed PR expert Clarence Mitchell after nine years last year as they faced uncertainty over the future of the £12 million British police investigation - codenamed Operation Grange - into the disappearance of their daughter.

PA
Madeleine McCann
Amaral was ordered to pay Kate and Gerry 500,000 euros (£430,000) plus interest in damages after losing round one of their libel battle in April 2015 over his book ‘The Truth of the Lie.’

Appeal judges reversed the initial ruling by a court in Lisbon in April last year, siding with the former police chief and overturning a ban on his book.

The decision sparked a fresh appeal by the McCanns to the country’s highest law court, which was lodged last May but heard today.

The McCanns’ Portuguese lawyer Isabel Duarte was “out of her office” and not immediately available this afternoon to comment………………..
 
………………. “My feeling is that Amaral cannot make another appeal if this goes against him as there is only the European courts and that’s too expensive and if it’s a decision based on the law and not the facts it’s difficult to go to the European court.

“The same would probably be true if the McCanns lost the case.”
 
………………………………………..
 
Brian Kennedy also gave an interview at the Rothley War Memorial on May 17, 2007. This time he was eager to tell us how to donate money to the “Fund” via two banks – the Nat West and the Royal Bank of Scotland. He also told us what the money would be used for:

“Mainly for legal expenditure”

As this was the first raison d’etre for the Madeleine Fund, and confirmed nationally by one of its directors, we can conclude that the Madeleine Fund was set up to provide legal funds for the McCanns.

At no time at all did Brian Kennedy state that the money was to be used to finance the search for Madeleine.
 
BK @ 1.56
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4jsLkwa7cc

Sharonl:

What are the restrictions on the fund?
What is the fixed asset investment?
Do the restrictions allow for the funds to be tied up in this investment?

The 'restricted funds' are the bewk proceeds and have been designated to finance 'the direct costs of the search for and the investigation into the disappearance of M.'

As such I suspect, but don't actually know, that this would protect these funds from the 'If the above objects are fulfilled then the objects shall be to pursue such purposes in similar cases arising in the UK, Portugal or elsewhere' clause, as the Mc's could (rightly) claim that this was their money rather than the public donations part and should be returned to them. 

I can see no other reason for splitting the fund as such, but am willing to be persuaded otherwise.

There is no problem with the fund investing in stocks and shares etc which is what the 'fixed investments' largely relates to, with the annual revaluations and dividends received looking reasonable. Whilst some may be tied up for a longer term, a good percentage should be able to be sold and turned into immediate cash if the need arose.

Pre 2013 'legal fees' appear to just relate directly to the Fund.

Legal Fees and Expenses (separated from 'Fund Legal Fees' in '13 & '14)
2013          £7130
2014          £8402
2015             ?
2016             ?
2017         £51718 ('Other creditors include costs which relate to work
                             carried out by ID over a number of years relating to the
                             libel action against GA'.
                             Nil in '16, '18 & '19 so I assume it's pretty much all legal
                             fees and expenses)
2018             ?
2019             ?
2020          £4229
2021             ?
2022          £6695