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

Analysis of Fund accounts by Enid o'Dowd - Mccannfiles

Page 2 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Analysis of Fund accounts by Enid o'Dowd - Mccannfiles

Post by Smokeandmirrors on 12.01.15 19:22

@Knitted wrote:
@Smokeandmirrors wrote:
@Knitted wrote:(deleted)


Link to Fraud Act 2006

The "might be" words are key here. Although unless remains appear at some point, this would be hard to demonstrate, hence the persistent claims of "no evidence of harm". Although being "disappeared" for many years IS harm whether they say so or not.
... Removing the irrelevant text variables the Fraud Act reads:

"a representation is false if the person making it knows that it... might be... misleading".  So, yes, the words 'might be' are key 

I appreciate the above definition is now wide open, and that the burden of proof will, (logically?), have to be on those in charge of the fund to demonstrate they acted on good faith, (and any parent of a missing child will no doubt be given the benefit of doubt)... but surely (regardless of Tannerman remaining on-screen after AR's Crimewatch comments) if Grange has ever alluded to searching for 'evidence and/or remains' an appropriate caveat needs to be put near to the 'donate' button? Failure to acknowledge this is (at the least) borderline misleading in my opinion... Surely?

I think many might agree, but the McCanns have been heavily lawyered up from the off. Smethurst, the funds lawyer and prominent Freemason, will no doubt "be aware" of the implications and be advising his clients accordingly winkwink 

Perhaps it was he who suggested Philomena's student be paid £37,000 for a decidedly mediocre website out of the fund.

____________________
The truth will out.

Smokeandmirrors
Moderator

Posts : 2428
Reputation : 5
Join date : 2011-07-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Analysis of Fund accounts by Enid o'Dowd - Mccannfiles

Post by Knitted on 12.01.15 19:37

... 37 effing grand???  

I used to manage a team of £2k a day Fujitsu Contractors who were riding on a a >£1bn contract that the UK Home Office had made a Limited Company (a subsidiary of a public sector company, wholly owned by UK Gov) sign up to, in order to bury UK Gov sheer incompetence in signing up to a ridiculous 'tripartite' agreement with A.N. Other UK Gov department)...

... and I can assure you even they'd never have dared have the audacity to submit a 'bid' for £37k for a simple website, (it'd have been rejected). They were sharp cookies and never missed a trick, but knowing them well they'd have probably knocked such a site up in their lunch hour as a favour, (That is, if they'd managed to keep away from the afternoon strip-clubs in Clerkenwell where the real deals were struck !).

£37k? What was it spent on???....Doughnuts and Deep Fried Mars Bars?????  

(Sorry... is that unprofessional of me?)

Knitted

Posts : 240
Reputation : 14
Join date : 2015-01-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Analysis of Fund accounts by Enid o'Dowd - Mccannfiles

Post by Smokeandmirrors on 12.01.15 19:46

@Knitted wrote:... 37 effing grand???  

I used to manage a team of £2k a day Fujitsu Contractors who were riding on a a >£1bn contract that the UK Home Office had made a Limited Company (a subsidiary of a public sector company, wholly owned by UK Gov) sign up to, in order to bury UK Gov sheer incompetence in signing up to a ridiculous 'tripartite' agreement with A.N. Other UK Gov department)...

... and I can assure you even they'd never have dared have the audacity to submit a 'bid' for £37k for a simple website, (it'd have been rejected). They were sharp cookies and never missed a trick, but knowing them well they'd have probably knocked such a site up in their lunch hour as a favour, (That is, if they'd managed to keep away from the afternoon strip-clubs in Clerkenwell where the real deals were struck !).

£37k? What was it spent on???....Doughnuts and Deep Fried Mars Bars?????  

(Sorry... is that unprofessional of me?)

Page 10 of the Report on the McCann files  link:    http://www.mccannfiles.com/id205.html

£235,000 (approx) grand was spent on Fund management and legal fees in the 1st year too. It's all itemised.

____________________
The truth will out.

Smokeandmirrors
Moderator

Posts : 2428
Reputation : 5
Join date : 2011-07-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Analysis of Fund accounts by Enid o'Dowd - Mccannfiles

Post by Smokeandmirrors on 12.01.15 19:49


____________________
The truth will out.

Smokeandmirrors
Moderator

Posts : 2428
Reputation : 5
Join date : 2011-07-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Analysis of Fund accounts by Enid o'Dowd - Mccannfiles

Post by Knitted on 12.01.15 20:01

Blimey... Incompetent or dishonest? I can't decide...

Still, If I was so blasé to have pumped £81,909 into something as vague as 'Awareness' without considering a balancing entry to cover the costs of independently measuring the return on that particular 'outlay'  I suppose I wouldn't really have to care...

Knitted

Posts : 240
Reputation : 14
Join date : 2015-01-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Analysis of Fund accounts by Enid o'Dowd - Mccannfiles

Post by aquila on 12.01.15 21:12

@Knitted wrote:Sorry if someone's already covered this (I haven't scrolled through the thread) but...I've just looked at the Fraud Act 2006, Chapter 35, and here's bits that seem relevant to me...

" />

Can anyone (e.g. Tony with your legal skills?) say if there's a case to challenge the fund? My reading of it is that, as has just been said by Aquila, if they don't disclose that Madeleine is considered to be dead by those looking into the case, then they are falling foul of Section 2, (2), (b).


Link to Fraud Act 2006
Please correct your post, I did not say this.

aquila

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

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Analysis of Fund accounts by Enid o'Dowd - Mccannfiles

Post by Knitted on 12.01.15 21:32

@aquila wrote:
@Knitted wrote:Sorry if someone's already covered this (I haven't scrolled through the thread) but...I've just looked at the Fraud Act 2006, Chapter 35, and here's bits that seem relevant to me...

" />

Can anyone (e.g. Tony with your legal skills?) say if there's a case to challenge the fund? My reading of it is that, as has just been said by Aquila, if they don't disclose that Madeleine is considered to be dead by those looking into the case, then they are falling foul of Section 2, (2), (b).


Link to Fraud Act 2006
Please correct your post, I did not say this.
Sorry... This site is proving to be a minefield of egg-shells for me. I'd like your help in helping me better comprehend others' postings that are made. I honestly do not want to cause offense...


You said (upthread) "Can someone make sense of why the McCanns need a donate button on their website (that would be the £37k website paid for from donations by the public) when the police service of two countries are conducting an investigation for which they (the McCanns) are so encouraged by?"


Apologies.... but why is that any different to my saying:

 "Can anyone (e.g. Tony with your legal skills?) say if there's a case to challenge the fund? My reading of it is that, as has just been said by Aquila, if they don't disclose that Madeleine is considered to be dead by those looking into the case, then they are falling foul of Section 2, (2), (b).



If my reading of it is incorrect (as you say it is, and which I fully accept it may be) then please help me by telling me what is wrong.


May I respectfully, and politely, and in the spirit of a constructive forum, ask that you don't simply ask (demand?) me to correct myself. I honestly read your posting as synonymous with mine. 


I will happily correct it... but please tell em (Freudian Slip for 'me'!) where I've gone wrong. Thanks. big grin


____________________
Justice...  Fought for by the masses. Purchased by the wealthy. Traded by the powerful.

Knitted

Posts : 240
Reputation : 14
Join date : 2015-01-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Analysis of Fund accounts by Enid o'Dowd - Mccannfiles

Post by aquila on 12.01.15 21:35

@knitted

I give up.

aquila

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

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Analysis of Fund accounts by Enid o'Dowd - Mccannfiles

Post by Knitted on 12.01.15 21:41

@aquila wrote:@knitted

I give up.
Why? Sorry... I misinterpreted you. Why not take a few seconds to correct me? I've read, re-read, and re-read your original comment and am still not sure what's wrong.

As I said, I am sorry if I have misinterpreted you.

I'm very easy going and am (honestly) happy to take it on the chin when I'm wrong...  But I am, seriously, confused by your last comment.

Am I missing something? Sorry if I am.

Knitted

Posts : 240
Reputation : 14
Join date : 2015-01-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Analysis of Fund accounts by Enid o'Dowd - Mccannfiles

Post by Doug D on 15.01.15 13:06

Accounts to 31/3/2014 are in but:
 
‘Highlighted documents are not yet available for inspection’
 
which presumably means they are being scanned at the present time and will be up in the next day or so.

Doug D

Posts : 2147
Reputation : 639
Join date : 2013-12-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Analysis of Fund accounts by Enid o'Dowd - Mccannfiles

Post by Enid O'Dowd on 15.01.15 15:06

I was in touch with Companies House yesterday and was told they are currently processing documents received on 31 December 31. 

It would appear therefore that the Fund Accounts were filed on the last legal date and could be available later today. 

I'm not going to put my plans for the day on hold though! 

These accounts cover the year from 1 April 2013 to 31 March 2014. It is now January 2015. These accounts, I predict, will tell us nothing of interest.

____________________
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: Analysis of Fund accounts by Enid o'Dowd - Mccannfiles

Post by Doug D on 16.01.15 10:14

From a quick first look of the accounts published on the Companies House site:
 
GeneralBook
Income £21k
(T shirts & GQWB £3k
Donation £18k)
 
Income £400k
 
Costs  £23k
(Legal £8k, Hotel, Travel & Subsistence £13k)
Costs £41k
(Awareness £2k,Campaign Management £13k, Search Fees £26k)
Expenses £21k
(Aud/Acc £9k, Prof. Fees £7k, Meetings & Events £3k)
 
 
 
Money in pot at 31/3/14:      £753k (2013 £416k) (of which £578k is in the ‘restricted’ book sales category)
 
Only other bits of note I could see:
Website £224
Interest received £258 (not much for such a large balance)
 
The statement:
 
In light of the review…..by MPS…. And subsequent reopening of the investigation…….the fund has scaled back independent investigative efforts to avoid duplication and to curb unnecessary expenditure. The Directors still feel it is important…… (to) maintain sizeable reserves so that the search for Madeleine can be resumed quickly if/when the need arises.
 
is much the same as they said last year.
 
The only thing that really struck me was the rest of the book money finally surfacing, as this was reported initially iirc to have been an advance of around £1m, yet only half had been seen in the accounts up to now.
 
I must revisit the old accounts though and try and identify the monies ‘donated to the fund’ from the various settlements (inc. T7) received, as to me it doesn't 'feel right', but it may just be that public donations have never been as high as seemingly purported and have 'looked good', having been inflated by the various settlement monies and declared donations.
 
I am sure Enid will let us have a full breakdown and comparison in the next day or so.

Doug D

Posts : 2147
Reputation : 639
Join date : 2013-12-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Analysis of Fund accounts by Enid o'Dowd - Mccannfiles

Post by tiny on 16.01.15 15:46

shout shout Enid O'Dowd, where are you big grin

tiny

Posts : 2274
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2010-02-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Analysis of Fund accounts by Enid o'Dowd - Mccannfiles

Post by Enid O'Dowd on 16.01.15 17:37

@tiny wrote:shout shout Enid O'Dowd, where are you big grin
I have the accounts and will put a report on the mccannfiles as usual, but I'm rather busy at the moment.

One interesting thing I have noted is that the accounts contain a page giving an analysis of expenditure. This is not a statutory requirement for private limited companies. The first accounts (to march 2008) did contain this analysis but the figures gave rise to many unfavourable comments. Subsequent accounts did not contain any detail of expenditure.

____________________
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: Analysis of Fund accounts by Enid o'Dowd - Mccannfiles

Post by tiny on 16.01.15 17:49

@Enid O'Dowd wrote:
@tiny wrote:shout shout Enid O'Dowd, where are you big grin
I have the accounts and will put a report on the mccannfiles as usual, but I'm rather busy at the moment.

One interesting thing I have noted is that the accounts contain a page giving an analysis of expenditure. This is not a statutory requirement for private limited companies. The first accounts (to march 2008) did contain this analysis but the figures gave rise to many unfavourable comments. Subsequent accounts did not contain any detail of expenditure.
thumbsup thank you

tiny

Posts : 2274
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2010-02-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Analysis of 2014 Accounts

Post by Doug D on 29.01.15 19:48

Enid O’Dowd has posted up her analysis of the latest accounts on McCannfiles at:
 
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id232.html
 
Couple of things from her analysis I would pass comment on:
 
She says that of other income ‘none of which came via the website’
 
Although the accounts show an entry ‘Donation income via website’ against which there is no value for this year, last year shows a negative figure of £15796, although there is no mention of how this negative figure occurred, in either this years or the 2013 accounts and this figure did not even appear in the 2013 accounts.
There is a website cost of £5700 showing for 2013, so whether the website donations negative figure makes up the balance of the website cost is anyone’s guess.
I cannot believe that nobody was daft enough to donate something by the button over a whole year, although that is what the accounts suggest and am at loss to even surmise quite why this category has been added, rather than just leaving a net ‘donation income’ figure as shown in last years accounts.
 
Enid also queries the £400k ‘donation’ from Kate for book income:
 
‘That statement doesn't adequately explain the donation to me.  Surely it makes more sense for Dr McCann to put her surplus funds in the best interest bearing account she can find, and donate to the Fund if the need arises?’
 
I don’t think KM has any alternative other than to transfer ‘all royalties earned from sales of this book’ in accordance with the statement on the book flyer:
 
‘It is for this reason that all royalties earned from sales of this book will be donated to Madeleine’s Fund.’
 
although whether she can get away with hanging on to the serialization rights etc is a matter for conjecture. It may also be beneficial to transfer any such personal earnings she can get away with, across to the Limited Company, as the costs of the original book case (which were awarded against them, but deferred) and a possible costs award for the current case, would be against them personally and the Limited Company would therefore be protected from any claim, as it is not the company that has taken Amaral to court.
 
One of the original objects of the company was:
 
‘To provide support, including financial assistance, to Madeleine’s family’
 
and although this dropped off the objects as shown in the accounts after 2011, I am not sure if this has actually been removed from the company’s ‘Mem & Arts’ or just 'forgotten about' in the accounts ‘as it doesn’t look very good’.
 
Either way, if it has been formally removed, it can probably just as easily be put back.
 
There is an anomaly with the ‘Auditors fees’ for both 2014 and 2013, with two different figures quoted for each year £5900 or £8280 and £6300 or £9780, but as with most things McCann, discrepancies don’t generally matter, so why should the Limited Company accounts be any different?
 
What exactly do HaysMacintyre do to earn their auditors fees if basic accounting discrepancies are not identified?
 
Enid also includes a breakdown of income/expenditure over the full course of the fund, adding that it is not possible to analyse in detail the income, as figures were only broken down in years 1 and 7, but this is something I keep meaning to look at to try and split off the various awards and donations made that have been identified in the press over the years.
 
Thank you Enid.

Doug D

Posts : 2147
Reputation : 639
Join date : 2013-12-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Analysis of Fund accounts by Enid o'Dowd - Mccannfiles

Post by aiyoyo on 30.01.15 12:26

@Doug D wrote:
 
 
although whether she can get away with hanging on to the serialization rights etc is a matter for conjecture. It may also be beneficial to transfer any such personal earnings she can get away with, across to the Limited Company, as the costs of the original book case (which were awarded against them, but deferred) and a possible costs award for the current case, would be against them personally and the Limited Company would therefore be protected from any claim, as it is not the company that has taken Amaral to court.

Interesting observation ! 
If Ltd Co. is protected from any claim being not the named litigator in the Lawsuit   then equally fund from company cannot be used to pay legal fees and legal costs as the liability of the lawsuit is the responsibility of the named individual litigators.

 It will be interesting to see if "Fund" will be used to pay the legal bills or will the Mcs foot it out of their own pockets.  If the latter, it will burn a massive hole in their pockets. Somehow I can't see that happening.

 
One of the original objects of the company was:
 
‘To provide support, including financial assistance, to Madeleine’s family’
 
and although this dropped off the objects as shown in the accounts after 2011, I am not sure if this has actually been removed from the company’s ‘Mem & Arts’ or just 'forgotten about' in the accounts ‘as it doesn’t look very good’.
 
Either way, if it has been formally removed, it can probably just as easily be put back.

If the objects of the company - allowing fund for use to financially support M's family - is removed from the Mem & Arts then company's money cannot be used to pay their personal legal bills, unless the objects is reinstated in the Mem & Art.

I tend to believe said "objects" is not reflected in the Audited Accounts as a reactive action to the negative public sentiments rather than removed from the Mem & Arts. Unless one gets to see the Mem&Arts no one is any wiser.  But personally I can't see them having the objects removed from the Mem & Arts when it's not to their advantage to do that.  They have hugh legal bills to meet and unless they've secret supporter who will borne the costs the money has to come from somewhere, and it ain't going to be from their pockets imv.
 

aiyoyo

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

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Analysis of Fund accounts by Enid o'Dowd - Mccannfiles

Post by Miraflores on 30.01.15 14:13

Interesting observation !
If Ltd Co. is protected from any claim being not the named litigator in the Lawsuit   then equally fund from company cannot be used to pay legal fees and legal costs as the liability of the lawsuit is the responsibility of the named individual litigators.

Would this explain why Kate has transferred a large tranche of money into the Fund?

Miraflores

Posts : 845
Reputation : 4
Join date : 2011-06-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Analysis of Fund accounts by Enid o'Dowd - Mccannfiles

Post by aquila on 30.01.15 14:20

@Miraflores wrote:
Interesting observation !
If Ltd Co. is protected from any claim being not the named litigator in the Lawsuit   then equally fund from company cannot be used to pay legal fees and legal costs as the liability of the lawsuit is the responsibility of the named individual litigators.

Would this explain why Kate has transferred a large tranche of money into the Fund?
Where is the interest on this money?

aquila

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

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Analysis of Fund accounts by Enid o'Dowd - Mccannfiles

Post by Rogue-a-Tory on 30.01.15 14:40

@Miraflores wrote:
Interesting observation !
If Ltd Co. is protected from any claim being not the named litigator in the Lawsuit   then equally fund from company cannot be used to pay legal fees and legal costs as the liability of the lawsuit is the responsibility of the named individual litigators.

Would this explain why Kate has transferred a large tranche of money into the Fund?
Disagree, the Limited company can pay for whatever it likes as long as the relevant transaction is covered by the memorandum of association, articles & objectives. That would include paying the legal costs of another body, which in this case under the guise of supporting the family, would appear possible should the original MOA remain intact.

What would be interesting would be a P11D, benefits in kind argument which should be investigated by HMRC on all costs reimbursed to Mr & Mrs. In other words should the reimbursement not be a genuine business expense then Mr & Mrs must pay tax on it at the prevailing rate.

Anybody ringing the HMRC bell? Would get them investigated, any investigation is a result with potential serious financial consequences.

Rogue-a-Tory

Posts : 402
Reputation : 245
Join date : 2014-09-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Tax and accounts

Post by Letterwriter on 31.01.15 19:06

- Agree that HMRC might be interested in tax and Benefits in Kind type issues.  Well, they would if it was anyone else's company!

- Companies House could also be informed that accounts have been filed in which comparative figures don't match.  Mind, all sorts of rubbish is filed with Companies House - I'm not sure when they last checked any accounts or looked into any complaint about filed accounts.

- I'd be interested to see how the contracts etc were structured re the book sales and how they were declared on the tax returns.

Letterwriter

Posts : 68
Reputation : 9
Join date : 2011-04-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Fund accounts 2014-15

Post by Guest on 29.12.15 18:14

Fund accounts up to 31st March 2015 due to be filed at Companies House by 31st December.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Fund accounts 2014-15

Post by Guest on 07.01.16 18:21

Looks as if latest accounts have been submitted to Companies House.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

March 2015

Post by Doug D on 08.01.16 13:11

Even less this time and they can’t even spell ‘abbreviated’ right on the cover!
 
Transparent? Yea, right.
 
Not even the minimal income/expenditure accounts we have seen in the past, so all we get is:
 
No debtors                             (2014 £Nil)
Cash at bank  £763,772       (2014 £765,363)
Creditors        £ 17,620         (£12,307)
 
Made up of:
Unrestricted Funds   £185,507       (£174,966)
Restricted Funds       £560,152       (£578,090)
 
And that’s it and all perfectly legal!
 
To qualify as small a company in its first financial year needs to meet at least two out of three of the following conditions:
            turnover not more than £6.5m
            balance sheet total not more than £3.26m
            number of employees not more than 50.
In respect of subsequent years the company will only incur a change in its status, eg from medium to small or from small to medium, if it respectively meets or fails two out of the three above conditions for both the current and the preceding financial year.
The above is commonly referred to as the two-year rule and its tenet has remained unchanged from the provisions of the 1985 Act.
 
444 Filing obligations of companies subject to small companies regime
 
(1)
The directors of a company subject to the small companies regime—
(a)
 must deliver to the registrar for each financial year a copy of a balance sheet drawn up as at the last day of that year, and
(b)
may also deliver to the registrar—
(i)
a copy of the company's profit and loss account for that year, and
(ii)
a copy of the directors' report for that year.
 
………………………………………….
 
So technically I believe they could have had income of up to £6.5m and spent it all, leaving the cash pot virtually the same as last year and we would be none the wiser.
 
I await Enid’s take on this with interest.

Doug D

Posts : 2147
Reputation : 639
Join date : 2013-12-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Fund Accounts year ending 31 March 2015

Post by Enid O'Dowd on 08.01.16 17:53

The Fund – Accounts for the year ended 31 March 2015
The accounts were approved on 18 December 2015 and signed by director Michael Linnett (retired accountant) on behalf of the Board. The accounts were then passed to the auditors who filed them at Companies House on 23 December 2015; the accounts became available to the public on 8 January. As in previous years, the accounts were filed close to the legal deadline.


This time the company has availed of a legal exemption for small companies enabling it to provide considerably less information than before.


The accounts filed consist of 4 pages:


1 .A cover page with an error spelling ‘abbreviated accounts’ as ‘abbreivated accounts’
2. Auditors’ Report
3. Balance Sheet
4. Notes to the Balance Sheet


From these accounts I have no idea what the actual income and expenditure was in the year. I don’t even know what the audit fee was or how many board meetings were held.


Due to the lack of information in these accounts I cannot update my spreadsheet of income and expenditure over the years since the company was incorporated in 2007. 


At the end of the year there was £763,772 in the bank, just under £2,000 less than at 31 March 2014. Whether this indicates a lack of financial activity in the year I have no way of knowing.


What has money been spent on during this year?


According the official website there is:


‘The 24-hour ‘hotline’ for people to call with information is still functioning on 0845 838 4699 for people who would prefer to contact us directly’


And there is a team in place comprising ‘a campaign coordinator and translators/interpreters, the team has several individuals with invaluable marketing, advertising and I.T. skills who help with the general campaign to find Madeleine.’

On another page of the official website it states ‘An experienced Fund Administrator has been appointed to ensure the highest standards of transparency and accountability.’

'7) What is the money being spent on?
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. Crown Way Maindy Cardiff CF14 3UZ.’

Wouldn’t it be interesting to know how much money was spent in this year as claimed above?


What income came in during the year?

I haven’t a clue!

The audited accounts have never been placed on the website. It would cost nothing to do this. The public is referred to Companies House!
Dr Kate McCann stated in her book madeleine published in 2011 that:

‘from the outset everyone agreed that, despite the costs involved, it (the Fund) must be run to the highest standards of transparency.’

In my opinion the Fund never met ‘the highest standards of transparency.’

Has the Board now decided that the Fund should be as untransparent as it is legally possible to be? It would appear so.

____________________
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

Page 2 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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