The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hi,

A very warm welcome to The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ forum.

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and start chatting with us!

Enjoy your day,

Jill Havern
Forum owner

FRAUDULENT FUND

Page 5 of 9 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: FRAUDULENT FUND

Post by Guest on Sat Dec 07, 2013 1:24 pm

Thanks again Enid, so hopefully by mid january we will get to see them and they will be "transparent" this time as promised.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: FRAUDULENT FUND

Post by joyce1938 on Sat Dec 07, 2013 2:46 pm

Hi re the accounts ,they were supposed to be transparent for ever ,still not been the case so far,whats about to change I ask ? joyce1938

joyce1938

Posts : 805
Reputation : 86
Join date : 2010-04-20
Age : 78
Location : england

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: FRAUDULENT FUND

Post by Guest on Sat Dec 07, 2013 2:54 pm

Hi joyce,
I was being sarcastic sorry,there never has been any transparency as promised from what I see the absolute minimum has been disclosed.
But I live in hope!

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: FRAUDULENT FUND

Post by Guest on Sat Dec 07, 2013 6:07 pm

I have brought this down from sallypelt in Today's News as it seems relevant here.
I don't tweet but was reading Jon Taits tweets and saw this :    Sorry, hopeless at c/p, but this Bank transfer is what Enid has done isn't it?    So considered a private transfer NOT a donation?   Is this a wriggle to keep money coming in to the account, but maybe not in essence to the Fund ???

Any clarity would be welcome !



  1. Jon Tait ‏
    [ltr]@jontaito[/ltr]

    1h
    @Ans4MBM @19Barbara57 @Jayelles1 The question is, does that mean technically OFM are no longer soliciting donations? #mccann

     View conversation





  • David Steel ‏
    [ltr]@DaSteelMan[/ltr]

    1h
    Google Checkout changed over on 13th November - it takes an hour to change over. When can I buy a wristband? #McCann
     Retweeted by Jon Tait
    Expand






  • sweepyface ‏
    [ltr]@sweepyface[/ltr]

    1h
    #mccann If you have to set up Bank transfer yourself that is interesting and done so that it is NOT a donation but a private transfer
     Retweeted by Jon Tait
    Expand







  • Jon Tait ‏
    [ltr]@jontaito[/ltr]

    1h
    @sweepyface That's what I thought! #mccann

     View conversation



  • Guest
    Guest


    Back to top Go down

    Re: FRAUDULENT FUND

    Post by Enid O'Dowd on Sat Dec 07, 2013 6:27 pm

    The SUPPORT page of the McCann website states:

    Donations can be made to the Fund through the following:

    1. The internet via the donate button (we know that this is not working at the moment)

    2. Posting a cheque to a given address (has anyone tried this and asked for a receipt?)

    3. By electronic bank transfer (this is what I did) and it states all donations will be processed free of charge. I was not charged either by their bank or my bank for the Bank transfer I made.

    Any payment made to a company/organisation to whom you do Not owe money and which is of an entirely voluntary nature is clearly a donation. The method of payment is not relevant.

    My reason for transferring the money was research as some members felt the Fund Bank Account had been closed; my payment should be treated as a donation in the Fund accounts for the year ended 31 March 2014.

    ____________________
    Author of Fateful Decisions: there's a fine line between acceptable parenting and neglect.   www.enidodowd.com
    Author of 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. Available on www.mccannfiles.com

    Enid O'Dowd
    Researcher

    Posts : 107
    Reputation : 20
    Join date : 2013-11-14

    View user profile http://www.enidodowd.com

    Back to top Go down

    Re: FRAUDULENT FUND

    Post by Guest on Sat Dec 07, 2013 6:33 pm

    Thank you Enid, my fault for taking the tweets as fact  !      What you have explained is just what I thought should be happening, site down or not, and 
    shows, as you say, the Fund Account is still in operation.

    Guest
    Guest


    Back to top Go down

    Re: FRAUDULENT FUND

    Post by aquila on Sat Dec 07, 2013 6:37 pm

    Hi Enid,

    With regards to point No. 3

    Quote

    3. By electronic bank transfer (this is what I did) and it states all donations will be processed free of charge. I was not charged either by their bank or my bank for the Bank transfer I made.

    End quote

    Is it normal practice for a bank to give free transactions to a limited company? I understand it's a not-for-profit company but in your experience is it usual for banks to give all not-for-profit limited companies this concession?

    aquila

    Posts : 7953
    Reputation : 1174
    Join date : 2011-09-03

    View user profile

    Back to top Go down

    Re: FRAUDULENT FUND

    Post by Enid O'Dowd on Sat Dec 07, 2013 6:49 pm

    @aquila wrote:Hi Enid,

    With regards to point No. 3

    Quote

    3. By electronic bank transfer (this is what I did) and it states all donations will be processed free of charge. I was not charged either by their bank or my bank for the Bank transfer I made.

    End quote

    Is it normal practice for a bank to give free transactions to a limited company? I understand it's a not-for-profit company but in your experience is it usual for banks to give all not-for-profit limited companies this concession?
    There would be no reason to give free banking to an ordinary limited company that was trading for profit.

    My experience is that banks are being less generous with organisations whether charities or not for profits etc as the banks in the UK and in Ireland have had such bad results from their reckless lending. They have had to get tough to restore profitability. I can understand why the Fund got the concession on charges at the start;  it was such a high profile case and the company, while it did not have charity status, appeared to be doing searching for a missing child and there was good PR for the bank in facilitating donors in this way. I doubt there are many donors now so the bank is not incurring lots of costs on the administrative work involved. I was very happy not to be charged!

    ____________________
    Author of Fateful Decisions: there's a fine line between acceptable parenting and neglect.   www.enidodowd.com
    Author of 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. Available on www.mccannfiles.com

    Enid O'Dowd
    Researcher

    Posts : 107
    Reputation : 20
    Join date : 2013-11-14

    View user profile http://www.enidodowd.com

    Back to top Go down

    Re: FRAUDULENT FUND

    Post by aquila on Sat Dec 07, 2013 7:03 pm

    @Enid O'Dowd wrote:
    @aquila wrote:Hi Enid,

    With regards to point No. 3

    Quote

    3. By electronic bank transfer (this is what I did) and it states all donations will be processed free of charge. I was not charged either by their bank or my bank for the Bank transfer I made.

    End quote

    Is it normal practice for a bank to give free transactions to a limited company? I understand it's a not-for-profit company but in your experience is it usual for banks to give all not-for-profit limited companies this concession?
    There would be no reason to give free banking to an ordinary limited company that was trading for profit.

    My experience is that banks are being less generous with organisations whether charities or not for profits etc as the banks in the UK and in Ireland have had such bad results from their reckless lending. They have had to get tough to restore profitability. I can understand why the Fund got the concession on charges at the start;  it was such a high profile case and the company, while it did not have charity status, appeared to be doing searching for a missing child and there was good PR for the bank in facilitating donors in this way. I doubt there are many donors now so the bank is not incurring lots of costs on the administrative work involved. I was very happy not to be charged!
    I can see why the bank initially made this undertaking from a PR  and human stance and I can also see that if large sums of money are deposited at the bank then it's a good thing for everyone.

    If the bank now only have to deal with the odd transaction/donation (gone are the heady days of money pouring through the roof) and either aren't too bothered about waiving the fee because there's little activity then that's understandable. Of course the bank might also treat a customer to the indulgence of 'no charges' because that customer might have an extraordinary balance in these times of austerity.

    Just my opinion of course.

    aquila

    Posts : 7953
    Reputation : 1174
    Join date : 2011-09-03

    View user profile

    Back to top Go down

    Re: FRAUDULENT FUND

    Post by ultimaThule on Sat Dec 07, 2013 8:20 pm

    As with 'the bewk', looking at the McCanns' limited company's accounts raises more questions than can be answered from reading 'the books'.

    In the first year of trading, which was not a full year as the company did not come into being until sometime in May 2007, the accounts to 31 March 2008 show an income of £1,846,178 of which £64,078 was derived from sales of t-shirts & wristbands ,with £391,740 being donations via the website and £1,390,360 being donations via the bank.  

    What isn't clear is how donations made in cash were recorded.  I seem to recall at least one of K&G's relatives grinning gleefully while telling the cameras they couldn't walk down the street without cash being pressed on them from well-wishers.  I also recall accounts of taxi drivers waiving their fares in favour of the 'Fund' and, of course, there's all those buckets at football matches, cake sales, and other events which must have raised a pretty penny, as the saying has it.

    Is there a stash of coins under the mattresses of Rothley Towers or can we take it that 'donation income via the bank' includes donations made in cash which were subsequently paid into the company's bank account and that, in the interests of transparency and best practice, there is a record of these events and totals raised which has satisfied the auditors?  

    With regard to the bank's generousity in handling all transactions gratis, £7363 is shown in the first year of trading's accounts as being 'bank charges'.  

    While the above information was easily extracted from the 'Detailed Schedule' which was attached to the first year accounts, there doesn't appear to be any schedules attached to the accounts for subsequent years.  If these are shown separately elsewhere I'd be grateful if a link can be posted.







    .

    ultimaThule

    Posts : 3355
    Reputation : 2
    Join date : 2013-09-18

    View user profile

    Back to top Go down

    Re: FRAUDULENT FUND

    Post by Guest on Sat Dec 07, 2013 8:48 pm

    The "brown" envelops to Kate & Gerry at Rothley and this: "At the entrance of the Ocean Club in Praia da Luz, the journalists who participated in the press conference, that was held by Madeleine's parents for the Portuguese media, encountered a plastic box to collect donations. A small text, signed by Kate and Gerry McCann, invited everyone who entered the resort to contribute. This gesture was not appreciated by the members of staff, who claimed that the resort "is full of collection boxes".

    ETA http://www.mccannfiles.com/id117.html

    Guest
    Guest


    Back to top Go down

    Re: FRAUDULENT FUND

    Post by Enid O'Dowd on Sat Dec 07, 2013 11:23 pm

    Ultima Thule,

    the first accounts from May 2007 to 31.3.2008 were the only accounts which gave any detail of expenditure.

    Thereafter, the filed accounts contained the minimum information required by law for a private limited company despite the commitment in the book (published May 2011) that whatever it cost the Fund would be open and transparent. It would cost nothing to file a page of expenditure detail and the directors of the Fund must have been presented with expenditure detail by whoever prepared the accounts - it is not clear whether the Fund Administrator (whoever he/she may have been) prepared the accounts for the auditors or whether the auditors themselves prepared the books themselves from the companies books and records.

    It would have cost nothing to have put financial information including the audited accounts on the company website. Initially, I understand there was information on incoming donations on the website but the audited accounts were never put on the website. The financial information on the website ceased I understand sometime in 2008 - if anyone has more specific information on this please post it.

    ____________________
    Author of Fateful Decisions: there's a fine line between acceptable parenting and neglect.   www.enidodowd.com
    Author of 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. Available on www.mccannfiles.com

    Enid O'Dowd
    Researcher

    Posts : 107
    Reputation : 20
    Join date : 2013-11-14

    View user profile http://www.enidodowd.com

    Back to top Go down

    Re: FRAUDULENT FUND

    Post by Guest on Sat Dec 07, 2013 11:31 pm

    Only their very first accounts were published in some detail. After that they were filleted on a number of websites and even in the MSM. They learned their lesson well and all we get now is the bare bones. And even those don't count up ...

    Guest
    Guest


    Back to top Go down

    Re: FRAUDULENT FUND

    Post by ultimaThule on Sun Dec 08, 2013 2:23 pm

    thanks If it hadn't been for your detailed and informative analysis it would have taken me considerably longer to get to grips with the McCanns' limited company's accounts, Enid, and I am deeply appreciative of the time and effort you've expended over the years in making them 'transparent' to all roses .

    It may be that any problem inherent in updating the sales/donate online page, which has taken longer than the time it took to get the website up and running, together with the problems encountered by those who have attempted to donate in person by means of bank transfer at the counters of their various individual banks, has been caused by lack of adherence to the standard of best practice required of charitable organisations as promised to benefactors in the limited company's mission statement, or it may be that new stock of high quality merchandise is en route to the UK by slow boat from a port in the Far East.

    In any event, I suspect the extremely generous sum you remitted to the company by direct bank transfer via your online banking service last Monday will not be hard to identify as it is possible it will be the only donation received in December, if not the last quarter of this year smilie

    By way of a change from counting sheep, I've been totting up the euros expended on the suit for libel the McCanns instituted against Dr Amaral some 4 years ago. On one especially sleep challenged night I got to 569,000 before drifting away to the land of nod but, of course, K&G are unlikely to spend any time worrying over the rising cost of the trial as their wealthy patron(s) will be picking up the tab for their legal fees, albeit a certain obscurity prevents us from seeing whether this will extend to the legal fees of Dr Amaral and his 3 co-defendants should the Court so order.

    Having noticed that the original 9 directors of the company have dwindled to 6 without any replacements having been made, it occurred to me that K&G together with KM's Uncle Brian Kennedy now comprise 50% of the board members. On searching this site in the hope I could ascertain whether 'M Linnett' is also a relative, I came across this thread http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t3258-michael-linnett-director-of-the-madeleine-fund#72554 which makes surprising, and somewhat disquieting, reading.

    ultimaThule

    Posts : 3355
    Reputation : 2
    Join date : 2013-09-18

    View user profile

    Back to top Go down

    Re: FRAUDULENT FUND

    Post by aiyoyo on Sun Dec 08, 2013 6:17 pm

    @Enid O'Dowd wrote:Ultima Thule,

    the first accounts from May 2007 to 31.3.2008 were the only accounts which gave any detail of expenditure.

    Thereafter, the filed accounts contained the minimum information required by law for a private limited company despite the commitment in the book (published May 2011) that whatever it cost the Fund would be open and transparent. It would cost nothing to file a page of expenditure detail and the directors of the Fund must have been presented with expenditure detail by whoever prepared the accounts - it is not clear whether the Fund Administrator (whoever he/she may have been) prepared the accounts for the auditors or whether the auditors themselves prepared the books themselves from the companies books and records.

    It would have cost nothing to have put financial information including the audited accounts on the company website. Initially, I understand there was information on incoming donations on the website but the audited accounts were never put on the website. The financial information on the website ceased I understand sometime in 2008 - if anyone has more specific information on this please post it.
    If only a FOI on Pte Ltd Co is possible, it would be interesting to know who gave directive for the change of accounting format?
    It cant have been the Auditors initiative to change things without authorization.

    aiyoyo

    Posts : 9611
    Reputation : 318
    Join date : 2009-11-28

    View user profile

    Back to top Go down

    Who changed the accounts format

    Post by Enid O'Dowd on Sun Dec 08, 2013 6:51 pm

    The instruction to change the format of the accounts to give the minimum information required by law would have come from the board of directors.

    It would be interesting to know whether it was agreed by all the directors at that time or whether it was a majority board decision.

    Also interesting to know if the auditors meekly accepted the new policy or politely suggested that it would be better to continue to give more information that legally required. The auditors Haysmacintyre (see their website) deal with a lot of charities, not for profits etc and you would think they might have queried the change of policy. However, the client (the Fund) calls the shots.

    ____________________
    Author of Fateful Decisions: there's a fine line between acceptable parenting and neglect.   www.enidodowd.com
    Author of 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. Available on www.mccannfiles.com

    Enid O'Dowd
    Researcher

    Posts : 107
    Reputation : 20
    Join date : 2013-11-14

    View user profile http://www.enidodowd.com

    Back to top Go down

    Re: FRAUDULENT FUND

    Post by Daisy on Sun Dec 08, 2013 7:34 pm

    @Enid O'Dowd wrote:

    It would be interesting to know whether it was agreed by all the directors at that time or whether it was a majority board decision.
    Thank you Enid.

    This bit of information would be very telling indeed. After all - one or two of these Directors are extremely well connected and know fine well what's lawful or not. One of them is married to one of the wealthiest women in England with a portfolio of business interests that left me stunned!  Surely someone like him knows the score?

    ____________________
    “Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you are a mile away from them and you have their shoes.”   

    Unknown


    “And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music.” 

    Friedrich Nietzsche

    Daisy

    Posts : 1245
    Reputation : 4
    Join date : 2011-06-15
    Location : Yorkshire, England

    View user profile

    Back to top Go down

    Re: FRAUDULENT FUND

    Post by aiyoyo on Sun Dec 08, 2013 9:15 pm

    @Enid O'Dowd wrote:The instruction to change the format of the accounts to give the minimum information required by law would have come from the board of directors.

    That I am aware of.
    I would like to know which director in particular mooted that idea, was the decision unanimous or vote of majority, at which meeting and was the meeting minuted and reason given for the proposal to change? It is not a trading company so I suspect outside directors were not actively involved in the operation or account monitoring; or that they meet regularly. It would be interesting to know how expenditures were authorized; who is/are the director/s authorised to sign cheque and whether there's a cap on the spending limit that can be signed by director/s without having to seek prior approval from the Board.

    It would be interesting to know whether it was agreed by all the directors at that time or whether it was a majority board decision.

    Also interesting to know if the auditors meekly accepted the new policy or politely suggested that it would be better to continue to give more information that legally required. The auditors Haysmacintyre (see their website) deal with a lot of charities, not for profits etc and you would think they might have queried the change of policy. However, the client (the Fund) calls the shots.

    IMW, unless the Auditors were suspicious of the legitimacy of the Fund I doubt they would see reason to suspect new policy regarding format change. Provided there is no glaring irregularities or unlawful spendings, auditors generally do not have problem with reclassification of accounts.
    Say for example if the Fund was used to pay household expenditure or mortgage or not supported by receipts then that is auditors responsibility to query those, but if used to pay lawyers in the name of search to fight disbelievers of mccanns the auditors might not see reason to raise any question,because the question of whether the Fund is legal or not is not liability of Auditors.

    aiyoyo

    Posts : 9611
    Reputation : 318
    Join date : 2009-11-28

    View user profile

    Back to top Go down

    Re: FRAUDULENT FUND

    Post by ultimaThule on Fri Dec 13, 2013 9:00 pm

    In January 2008 it was reported that the McCanns had negotiated a £1million deal to 'tell all' to Oprah Winfrey.

    In March 2008 the McCanns received £550,000 in settlement of their claim for libel against the Express group of newspapers.  At that time it was reported that they intended to donate this sum to 'the campaign' and it was also reported that this donation doubled 'the amount left in the fund'  - by which I assume that the monies donated by the public and other benefactors since the limited company's inception in May 2007 had dwindled to £550,000 by March of the following year.

    In October 2008 the Express Group paid a total of £375,000 to the 'Tapas 7' in settlement of their (presumably joint?) claim for  libel and it was reported that  this sum had been donated in its entirety to 'the fund'.

    As assurances were given that 'the fund' would not be used to pay the McCanns' legal expenses, and in view of the fact that the Express Group paid the McCanns' and the Tapas 7's legal costs over and above the sums paid to them in settlement, I am wondering if Enid is available to comment on how much of the £1,925,000 itemised above can be seen in the limited company's annual accounts for 2007 and 2008?

    ultimaThule

    Posts : 3355
    Reputation : 2
    Join date : 2013-09-18

    View user profile

    Back to top Go down

    Re: FRAUDULENT FUND

    Post by magrat70 on Sun Dec 15, 2013 8:11 pm

    I am recovering from an operation and chest infection and checking updates on this site whilst at the same time reading Enid O'Dowd's excellent book. I am going to blame the meds because I was wondering since when did her book suddenly have colour and avatars on the bits on the website spin

    magrat70

    Posts : 73
    Reputation : 0
    Join date : 2013-11-15

    View user profile

    Back to top Go down

    Re: FRAUDULENT FUND

    Post by tigger on Mon Dec 16, 2013 8:56 am

    @ultimaThule wrote:In January 2008 it was reported that the McCanns had negotiated a £1million deal to 'tell all' to Oprah Winfrey.

    In March 2008 the McCanns received £550,000 in settlement of their claim for libel against the Express group of newspapers.  At that time it was reported that they intended to donate this sum to 'the campaign' and it was also reported that this donation doubled 'the amount left in the fund'  - by which I assume that the monies donated by the public and other benefactors since the limited company's inception in May 2007 had dwindled to £550,000 by March of the following year.

    In October 2008 the Express Group paid a total of £375,000 to the 'Tapas 7' in settlement of their (presumably joint?) claim for  libel and it was reported that  this sum had been donated in its entirety to 'the fund'.

    As assurances were given that 'the fund' would not be used to pay the McCanns' legal expenses, and in view of the fact that the Express Group paid the McCanns' and the Tapas 7's legal costs over and above the sums paid to them in settlement, I am wondering if Enid is available to comment on how much of the £1,925,000 itemised above can be seen in the limited company's annual accounts for 2007 and 2008?

    About five shillings and six pence I believe  winkwink 

    ____________________
    Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.

    tigger

    Posts : 8112
    Reputation : 24
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    View user profile

    Back to top Go down

    Re: FRAUDULENT FUND

    Post by Guest on Mon Dec 16, 2013 9:02 am


    Guest
    Guest


    Back to top Go down

    Transparency

    Post by PeterMac on Tue Dec 17, 2013 4:30 pm

    Transparent.
    (of a material or article) allowing light to pass through so that objects behind can be distinctly seen

    In other words you can see right through it !

    ____________________


    PeterMac
    Researcher

    Posts : 10170
    Reputation : 143
    Join date : 2010-12-06

    View user profile

    Back to top Go down

    Re: FRAUDULENT FUND

    Post by Guest on Thu Jan 02, 2014 1:20 am

    I had a look online and the accounts are now officially a day late. What implications does this have for the fund,I presume they will be fined for each day they go over.

    Guest
    Guest


    Back to top Go down

    Re: FRAUDULENT FUND

    Post by marconi on Thu Jan 02, 2014 7:44 am

    I don't believe that people are still giving money to the fund. They could be fed up of the case.

    marconi

    Posts : 1082
    Reputation : 2
    Join date : 2013-05-20

    View user profile

    Back to top Go down

    Page 5 of 9 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

    View previous topic View next topic Back to top


     
    Permissions in this forum:
    You cannot reply to topics in this forum