Re: FRAUDULENT FUND

by bobbin 09.01.14 18:31

Doug D wrote:Nothing earth-shattering.

As at 31^st March 2013 just over £400k left in the pot. (3/12 £474k)

Income £70k (3/12 £856k, with £550k from book)

Merchandising & Campaign Costs £115k (3/12 £476k)

Admin Expenses £24k (3/12 £25k)

Deficit for year £59k (3/12 Surplus £350k)

There were no employees in the year (3/12 None)

Fund ‘covered expenses for witnesses giving evidence in a libel trial in Lisbon against GA’

Interest earned only £323, (even 1% on £400k + would give £4k) but it may be kept in a current account to offset bank charges possibly.

I’m sorry but I can’t resist it.
The Auditors report does cover ‘related notes’ and not just the figures. I just hope that:
‘Madeleine’s Fund is governed by a Board of Directors who meet on a regular basis, approximately every month. During the year, there were 5 meetings’
does not reflect on the rest of the figures.

These are the accounts for "year ending 31st March 2013", so the 'attendance expenses' for the recent Pike, Mother, Wright and old uncle tom cobbley and all...Libel case should come since this date, i.e. in this current year's accounts, to be filed presumably before 31 Dec 2014.
Or were there attendance expenses of notable value up to 31st March 2013 that I have not noticed. spin

by Doug D 09.01.14 18:51

Yes you're right bobbin. The witnesses this year for the actual libel trial, which is most of them, are post-September, so will be in the 2014 accounts. I did try to look to see if there was a timeline of the 'injunction' cases as opposed to a libel trial as stated in the accounts, to see who was called where and for what, but it's all very muddled, probably deliberately so.

by ultimaThule 10.01.14 5:24

candyfloss wrote:
Fund ‘covered expenses for witnesses giving evidence in a libel trial in Lisbon against GA’

Is that correct??......Does it give a breakdown of how much? How many went, I can't recall now, but quite a few. Hotel expenses, flights etc. The McCanns started this process, I cannot understand why a fund for a missing child would pay for this?

Can someone who can remember list all the people who attended.

Witnesses for the McCanns:

Day 1: Susan Hubbard
   Emma Loach
Day 2: David Trickey
            Angus McBride
Note: the judge failed to return to the court after lunch when, presumably, Alan Pike or one of the other witnesses who took the stand on Day 3 was due to appear.
Day 3: Alan Pike
            Joao Melchior Gomes
            Alipio Ribero
            Claudia Nogueira
Day 4: Michael Wright
            Maria Isabel Stilwell
Day 5: abandoned due to illness of Santos Olivera's son
Day 6: Patricia Cameron
            Henrique Machado

The McCanns fielded 12 witnesses, 7 of whom do not reside in Portugal.   As far as I'm aware, Patricia Cameron was called on Day 5 to give evidence and was required to return on Day 6 in order to do so. In addition, KM's mother attended on c3 occasions but, due to an error on Dr Duarte's part, was not called to testify.

by Guest 11.01.14 2:48

Personally don't know much about such things as copyright on websites but noticed on the funds page down the bottom it says ©2013-2014.

Is this significant or normal?

by tiny 12.01.14 12:37

How many LDT companys ask for donations to keep the parents and family in the custom they are used too FRAUDULENT FUND - Page 7 234726

by **PeterMac** 13.01.14 16:40

Posting these here for posterity.

IS for legal expenses
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4jsLkwa7cc&feature=player_embedded

is NOT for legal expenses
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4NNJCvWAH4&feature=player_embedded

by gbwales 16.01.14 18:35

ultimaThule wrote:
candyfloss wrote:
Fund ‘covered expenses for witnesses giving evidence in a libel trial in Lisbon against GA’



Is that correct??......Does it give a breakdown of how much? How many went, I can't recall now, but quite a few. Hotel expenses, flights etc. The McCanns started this process, I cannot understand why a fund for a missing child would pay for this?

Can someone who can remember list all the people who attended.

Witnesses for the McCanns:

Day 1: Susan Hubbard
   Emma Loach
Day 2: David Trickey
            Angus McBride
Note: the judge failed to return to the court after lunch when, presumably, Alan Pike or one of the other witnesses who took the stand on Day 3 was due to appear.
Day 3: Alan Pike
            Joao Melchior Gomes
            Alipio Ribero
            Claudia Nogueira
Day 4: Michael Wright
            Maria Isabel Stilwell
Day 5: abandoned due to illness of Santos Olivera's son
Day 6: Patricia Cameron
            Henrique Machado

The McCanns fielded 12 witnesses, 7 of whom do not reside in Portugal.   As far as I'm aware, Patricia Cameron was called on Day 5 to give evidence and was required to return on Day 6 in order to do so. In addition, KM's mother attended on c3 occasions but, due to an error on Dr Duarte's part, was not called to testify.

Here it is! I thought this was in another thread...

So these witnesses should all be covered in next year's accounts surely.
Who are the witnesses being paid for from the 2013 accounts? What sessions?

by Smokeandmirrors 16.01.14 18:50

Interesting that Eileen McCann mentions that the fund starting up was "uplifting" to Gerry. Indeed, it has held him aloft for several years now.

by **PeterMac** 10.03.14 16:34

I came across this again the other day.
The reference is to a blog, rather than to an original source.
Does anyone have the source ?

http://twittweb.com/mccann+portuguese+newsp-22468564

In front of a group of journalists, announcing the creation of ‘the fund’ a couple of days after “the incident’.
Journalist: So what will the fund be used for?
Gerry: To continue looking for Madeleine after the official search ends

by Guest 10.03.14 18:30

PeterMac wrote:I came across this again the other day.
The reference is to a blog, rather than to an original source.
Does anyone have the source ?
http://twittweb.com/mccann+portuguese+newsp-22468564

In front of a group of journalists, announcing the creation of ‘the fund’ a couple of days after “the incident’.
Journalist: So what will the fund be used for?
Gerry: To continue looking for Madeleine after the official search ends

Snidely discarding the possibility any official search WOULD find her!

by plebgate 10.03.14 18:36

PeterMac wrote:I came across this again the other day.
The reference is to a blog, rather than to an original source.
Does anyone have the source ?
http://twittweb.com/mccann+portuguese+newsp-22468564

In front of a group of journalists, announcing the creation of ‘the fund’ a couple of days after “the incident’.
Journalist: So what will the fund be used for?
Gerry: To continue looking for Madeleine after the official search ends

Interesting, very interesting, as was the" big event" before the first anniversary of Maddie's disappearance. IIRC Elton John's name was mentioned as being asked to take part in" the event" - didn't happen though.

by **PeterMac** 02.04.14 10:20

picked this up earlier today.
http://companycheck.co.uk/company/06248215/MADELEINES-FUND-LEAVING-NO-STONE-UNTURNED-LIMITED/financial-accounts#financials
FRAUDULENT FUND - Page 7 <a href=

" />

" />

" />

Nearly half a million still in the "Fund" - to 'Help the Family'
how much has been hidden elsewhere ?

Interesting that no one has though to include the possible / probably loss of the libel trial within the Liabilities !

by Doug D 02.04.14 11:27

PeterMac:

‘Interesting that no one has thought to include the possible / probably loss of the libel trial within the Liabilities!’

At the time of the accounts (March 2013) the trial proper still hadn’t started, I believe they were still within the time limit given to try & reach a settlement out of court and presumably the Mc’s hadn’t realized what a disaster the actual court case was to become.

It should be different this year though, unless they can ~~pull the wool~~ persuade the accountants that the case is still there to be won!

Unfortunately, going on past history, we will have to wait till next January for the accounts, to see whether a significant future liability (ie post 31/3/14) has been allowed for, or whether one of their ‘financial backers’ if they are still around, are still going to stump up the cash.

by Liz Eagles 02.04.14 12:21

I think people forget that Enid O'Dowd scrutinised the Fund accounts. Enid is a qualified accountant with a background in 'not for profit/charity' background.

Enid has never been afraid of giving her findings of the Fund accounts.

by aiyoyo 02.04.14 12:32

Smokeandmirrors wrote:Interesting that Eileen McCann mentions that the fund starting up was "uplifting" to Gerry. Indeed, it has held him aloft for several years now.

It's a most bizzare thing to say no matter taken in which context.
It would mean they knew Maddie will never be found and they would be needing it.

by aiyoyo 02.04.14 12:40

PeterMac wrote:I came across this again the other day.
The reference is to a blog, rather than to an original source.
Does anyone have the source ?
http://twittweb.com/mccann+portuguese+newsp-22468564

In front of a group of journalists, announcing the creation of ‘the fund’ a couple of days after “the incident’.
Journalist: So what will the fund be used for?
Gerry: To continue looking for Madeleine after the official search ends

The Fund was started from the GET GO where a whole wide range of unknown possibilities exit at that stage.
Maddie's abductor could have been found and apprehended, or Maddie's body could have been found.
One is thus left with the inevitable question - how he knew at that stage that when official search terminates Maddie would still be missing?

by Guest 02.04.14 12:49

What a pity that he wasn't actually asked there and then how he knew that Madeleine would not be found via the official search.

by **PeterMac** 02.04.14 13:27

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:What a pity that he wasn't actually asked there and then how he knew that Madeleine would not be found via the official search.

It is a great pity that many of those involved were not asked the right questions.
Or that when they refused to answer they were not pursued with supplementaries.
PJ, Leicestershire, SY, Paxman, all reporters, ALL Guilty of professional negligence in this regard.

Even Carter-Ruck had not bothered to ask about the evidence for the assertion in the High Court that Madeleine had been "abducted" and had cravenly to admit they had not done so.
Or perhaps they had done - and as relatively intelligent people had realised that this was an avenue they should not go down.
But if that is the case, Mrs Martorell's statement to the court was a disgrace, and possibly unlawful.
I don't know what to make of that whole extraordinary incident.

(Kevin, if you are reading this, perhaps you could help !)

by ultimaThule 02.04.14 13:55

PeterMac wrote:
Nearly half a million still in the "Fund" - to 'Help the Family'
how much has been hidden elsewhere ?

Interesting that no one has though to include the possible / probably loss of the libel trial within the Liabilities !

The limited company's accounts indicate that the McCanns were in receipt of £1.8 million during their first year of trading; a sum which had dwindled to less than £200,000 within three years before their reserves were boosted by an advance on sales of Exhibit KH1.

Given the vast outpouring of public sympathy worldwide which prompted a colossal number of hits on the company's website over a period of many weeks, £1.8 million would seem to be a somewhat pale reflection of the tidal wave of goodwill and generousity which did so much to uplift the McCanns back in 2007.

It should be noted that the company's less than transparent accounts do not reveal how much of this £1.8 was received in cash, either sent direct to Luz/Rothley or given in person to the McCanns and their relatives/friends, and how much was received via PayPal/bank transfer, nor is there any breakdown of the sums received from the numerous events which were organised with the express intention of further generating income for their limited company.

With regard to the libel trial, in the absence of any further information relating to the company's accounts, it cannot be established whether or when the company paid for the legal costs of obtaining an injunction against publication/sales of 'The Truth of the Lie' and the two appeals which followed in which the McCanns were unsuccessful.

Nor, indeed, does there appear to be any way of establishing whether the company has borne the costs of the pr/reputation management specialists who have variously been employed on their behalf, both in Portugal and the UK, or the cost of retaining the services of criminal lawyer, Angus MacBride, who has advised them throughout and was seen in attendance on Mrs McCann in Lisbon where he also gave testimony for his clients in October of last year.

From the published accounts for the year ending December 2013, it would seem the expenses of those witnesses who have given testimony for the McCanns will be met by the company but there is no indication of whether it is anticipated that the company will also pay for the services of their Portuguese counsel/lawyers in respect of the ongoing trial.

by aiyoyo 02.04.14 14:15

PeterMac wrote:picked this up earlier today.
http://companycheck.co.uk/company/06248215/MADELEINES-FUND-LEAVING-NO-STONE-UNTURNED-LIMITED/financial-accounts#financials
" />
" />
" />

Nearly half a million still in the "Fund" - to 'Help the Family'
how much has been hidden elsewhere ?

Interesting that no one has though to include the possible / probably loss of the libel trial within the Liabilities !

They do not expect to lose.
Don't forget ID promised them honey and they trust ID to deliver.
They hope to win and go straight to collect their millions.

Besides, at most they can include unpaid actual legal costs and projected legal costs for the libel.
What they can't project is cost of loss so they can't include that.
In the eventuality they lost and until Court awards damages and/or compensation to the other side, they won't know the figures.
From my layperson point of view, I should think the defendants are likely to be awarded damages, but as for compensation for lost of income etc that's down to defendants to file a separate claim against the Mccanns.

If they should lose, the fund as it stands might be sufficient to cover their own legal fees and legal costs of the opposing side if decreed upon them to pay those as well; it would be interesting to see how much if any is left for appeal/s.
I get the impression legal cost in Portugal isn't as depleting to the pocket as in UK though I might be wrong because the amount is relative to the claimant's wealth.
I've a feeling if they lose they won't appeal, it's just not worth throwing good money on a bad/vexatious case.

by aiyoyo 02.04.14 15:08

ultimaThule wrote:PeterMac wrote:
Nearly half a million still in the "Fund" - to 'Help the Family'
how much has been hidden elsewhere ?

Interesting that no one has though to include the possible / probably loss of the libel trial within the Liabilities !

The limited company's accounts indicate that the McCanns were in receipt of £1.8 million during their first year of trading; a sum which had dwindled to less than £200,000 within three years before their reserves were boosted by an advance on sales of Exhibit KH1.

Given the vast outpouring of public sympathy worldwide which prompted a colossal number of hits on the company's website over a period of many weeks, £1.8 million would seem to be a somewhat pale reflection of the tidal wave of goodwill and generousity which did so much to uplift the McCanns back in 2007.

It's hell of a lot of money garnered from public support by any standard !
Never ever in history has a fund set up for a missing child/person yields that generous a response as that of Madeleine Mccann.
I have never come across a fund that collected millions for the sake of one missing child; moreover one in which her parents were suspected of involvement in the disappearance.
It's a travesty to the missing child that the fund was used to help her perpetrators escape justice.
The size of the collection reflects gullible people were fooled by their own prejudiced belief that a pair of white middle-class doctors could not have anything to do with their child disappearance. gTheir social class is the biggest thing going for them when they launched the fund appeal. It's an irony that the poorer you are and the lowest social class you belong to the lesser help /support you will get from the public as generally the joe public perceive the unfortunate social class as creators of their own unfortunate situation thus not deserving of helping hands.

It should be noted that the company's less than transparent accounts do not reveal how much of this £1.8 was received in cash, either sent direct to Luz/Rothley or given in person to the McCanns and their relatives/friends, and how much was received via PayPal/bank transfer, nor is there any breakdown of the sums received from the numerous events which were organised with the express intention of further generating income for their limited company.

With regard to the libel trial, in the absence of any further information relating to the company's accounts, it cannot be established whether or when the company paid for the legal costs of obtaining an injunction against publication/sales of 'The Truth of the Lie' and the two appeals which followed in which the McCanns were unsuccessful.

Nor, indeed, does there appear to be any way of establishing whether the company has borne the costs of the pr/reputation management specialists who have variously been employed on their behalf, both in Portugal and the UK, or the cost of retaining the services of criminal lawyer, Angus MacBride, who has advised them throughout and was seen in attendance on Mrs McCann in Lisbon where he also gave testimony for his clients in October of last year.

From the published accounts for the year ending December 2013, it would seem the expenses of those witnesses who have given testimony for the McCanns will be met by the company but there is no indication of whether it is anticipated that the company will also pay for the services of their Portuguese counsel/lawyers in respect of the ongoing trial.

They have got to pay their legal bills.
Since the Fund transparency is as thick as Rothley brick walls it is anyone's guess how much had been used for legal expenses but hidden under Search & Campaign expenditure. I'd imagine their Accountants know how to stretch the accounts as far the legal limits allow and still keep it within the legal boundary.
The accountants had better be ready to answer questions when the Fund comes under Police radar.

by Doug D 02.04.14 15:33

Aiyoyo:

‘I should think the defendants are likely to be awarded damages’

‘Costs’ rather than ‘damages’ presumably.

Amaral would then have to go after the Mc’s for damages for loss of earnings, libel, slander etc

As for an appeal, in spite of any legal advice they may receive not to, they are almost compelled to appeal if it goes against them, however vexatious, in order to keep the litigation going for a few more years, otherwise the whole house of cards will come tumbling down even faster around them.

Other than that, the best I see that they can hope for is that the judge says something in her final judgement which can be CM’d to show that as individuals, they never stood a chance up against the might of the ‘sardine munching’ institution and a story could be released that the only way forward is to leave things be, as any appeal is only going to come up against the same intractable brick wall, with no regard for their ‘truth’.

The trouble with this though, is that even our ‘led’ MSM must be chomping at the bit waiting for the verdict that will open the flood gates for real stories & serialisations, in order to boost their sales for months or even years to come.

The Mc’s must so regret ever having started down this road, but then I suppose their previous experiences had been that ‘everyone will just pay up without getting to court’ and Amaral's effective insistence that ‘black was white’ as far as their story went, in their eyes just had to be challenged.

by ultimaThule 02.04.14 15:36

aiyoyo wrote:
PeterMac wrote:picked this up earlier today.
http://companycheck.co.uk/company/06248215/MADELEINES-FUND-LEAVING-NO-STONE-UNTURNED-LIMITED/financial-accounts#financials
" />
" />
" />

Nearly half a million still in the "Fund" - to 'Help the Family'
how much has been hidden elsewhere ?

Interesting that no one has though to include the possible / probably loss of the libel trial within the Liabilities !

They do not expect to lose.
Don't forget ID promised them honey and they trust ID to deliver.
They hope to win and go straight to collect their millions.

Besides, at most they can include unpaid actual legal costs and projected legal costs for the libel.
What they can't project is cost of loss so they can't include that.
In the eventuality they lost and until Court awards damages and/or compensation to the other side, they won't know the figures.
From my layperson point of view, I should think the defendants are likely to be awarded damages, but as for compensation for lost of income etc that's down to defendants to file a separate claim against the Mccanns.

If they should lose, the fund as it stands might be sufficient to cover their own legal fees and legal costs of the opposing side if decreed upon them to pay those as well; it would be interesting to see how much if any is left for appeal/s.
I get the impression legal cost in Portugal isn't as depleting to the pocket as in UK though I might be wrong because the amount is relative to the claimant's wealth.
I've a feeling if they lose they won't appeal, it's just not worth throwing good money on a bad/vexatious case.

The cost of solictiors, barristers, etc aren't as expensive in Portugal where highly rated QCs don't don their wigs for less than £20,000 a day plus disbursements but, even so, a trial of this nature spanning this length of time, doesn't come cheap just because it's taking place in Lisbon rather than London.

In addition to their own legal costs, the McCanns have also been required to pay the defendants' costs prior to the proceedings which began last October. Although the trial appears to have been in abeyance since early January of this year, it seems there have been various motions put to the judge throughout which, if this is case, means the legal costs for both sides are continuing to mount and will do so until the case is resolved.

If the McCanns lose, I suspect they will announce their intention to appeal, However, I also suspect that any such announcement will prove to be as truthful as their statement that they would be appealing to the European Courts after Portugal's Supreme Court upheld the Appellate Court's well reasoned judgement which found against them.

If the McCanns win, I trust the defence will appeal and I have no doubt that any such appeal will be succesful.

by ultimaThule 02.04.14 15:53

aiyoyo wrote

It's hell of a lot of money garnered from public support by any standard !
Never ever in history has a fund set up for a missing child/person yields that generous a response as that of Madeleine Mccann.
I have never come across a fund that collected millions for the sake of one missing child; moreover one in which her parents were suspected of involvement in the disappearance.
It's a travesty to the missing child that the fund was used to help her perpetrators escape justice.
The size of the collection reflects gullible people were fooled by their own prejudiced belief that a pair of white middle-class doctors could not have anything to do with their child disappearance. Their social class is the biggest thing going for them when they launched the fund appeal. It's an irony that the poorer you are and the lowest social class you belong to the lesser help /support you will get from the public as generally the joe public perceive the unfortunate social class as creators of their own unfortunate situation thus not deserving of helping hands.

I totally agree with you, aiyoyo, and it's not just a travesty, it's a disgrace.

They have got to pay their legal bills.
Since the Fund transparency is as thick as Rothley brick walls it is anyone's guess how much had been used for legal expenses but hidden under Search & Campaign expenditure. I'd imagine their Accountants know how to stretch the accounts as far the legal limits allow and still keep it within the legal boundary.
The accountants had better be ready to answer questions when the Fund comes under Police radar.

As I see it, other than the verbal assurance which was given to the public that no money donated to this limited company would be spent on the McCanns' legal fees, there is no legally binding reason why the directors cannot spend the monies raised as they see fit.

However, should it be the case that monies have been raised fraudulently, this will be a matter for the Serious Fraud Office whose radar, I suspect, has been pinging off the scale for some considerable time.

by aiyoyo 02.04.14 16:05

ultimaThule wrote:aiyoyo wrote

It's hell of a lot of money garnered from public support by any standard !
Never ever in history has a fund set up for a missing child/person yields that generous a response as that of Madeleine Mccann.
I have never come across a fund that collected millions for the sake of one missing child; moreover one in which her parents were suspected of involvement in the disappearance.
It's a travesty to the missing child that the fund was used to help her perpetrators escape justice.
The size of the collection reflects gullible people were fooled by their own prejudiced belief that a pair of white middle-class doctors could not have anything to do with their child disappearance. Their social class is the biggest thing going for them when they launched the fund appeal. It's an irony that the poorer you are and the lowest social class you belong to the lesser help /support you will get from the public as generally the joe public perceive the unfortunate social class as creators of their own unfortunate situation thus not deserving of helping hands.

I totally agree with you, aiyoyo, and it's not just a travesty, it's a disgrace.

They have got to pay their legal bills.
Since the Fund transparency is as thick as Rothley brick walls it is anyone's guess how much had been used for legal expenses but hidden under Search & Campaign expenditure. I'd imagine their Accountants know how to stretch the accounts as far the legal limits allow and still keep it within the legal boundary.
The accountants had better be ready to answer questions when the Fund comes under Police radar.

As I see it, other than the verbal assurance which was given to the public that no money donated to this limited company would be spent on the McCanns' legal fees, there is no legally binding reason why the directors cannot spend the monies raised as they see fit.

However, should it be the case that monies have been raised fraudulently, this will be a matter for the Serious Fraud Office whose radar, I suspect, has been pinging off the scale for some considerable time.

What legal assurance given to the public the money won't be spent on legal fees ?
In fact uncle Brian Kennedy told the public it will be used for legal fees, if I am not wrong.