The Find Madeleine Fund

by Guest 15.05.18 2:00

Using the acknowledged expertise of forum researchers and analysts, is there any positive indication that the official Find Madeleine Fund could be fraudulant?

I don't refer to the more obvious anomalies, like transparency and accountability but more towards the legality of it's management, administration and operational activity as a limited company.

In my own view, I think I've said many times on the open forum, the likelihood of 'the fund' being the McCanns downfall, is remote in the extreme.

They are and always have been cosseted by expensive renowned lawyers. Chances of the fund administrators and legal advisors leaving themselves open to a fraud investigation, hovers around zero methinks - albeit only borderline legal. I don't doubt that's the true reason why charity status was dismissed in favour of a limited company - ostensibly there are strict codes that govern a charity whereas the management of a limited company is largely governed by the board of directors. Providing they don't break the law, they are safe from prosecution for malpractice - short of provable tax evasion or such like it's plain sailing.

I've no connection with the police or civil/criminal investigation of any description yet, I believe the only possible criminal proceedings against the McCanns within the UK can be for malpractice within the Fund's administration, if it can be proven.

Is this a possibilty?

by **Keitei** 15.05.18 15:45

The fund is a massive fraud on a grand scale, all that's needed is proof the McCanns knew MBM was dead at the time they asked for donations. It would be up to the UK to prosecute them I think, not Portugal.

With everything this pair have done, to prove the fund monies were used fraudulently I expect Forensic Accountants would have to sort that mess out.

It is my opinion the fund is used for money laundering, I have np proof of that, just my gut feeling.

by Guest 15.05.18 17:22

Ah yes, I see that clearly! Problem is proving the McCanns knew Madeleine was no more when sending out the begging bowls. With the scale of the establishment cover-up, I can't see that ever happening. Even if Portugal re-investigated the case as a result of the MMRG missive, I don't doubt the hole will be plugged before any water is allowed through.

I was wondering if there was any other known aspect of the fund's administration that could be considered fraudulent - like the McCanns, family members and friends being on the board of directors. I understand, no way could anything directly relating to the fund be investigated by Portuguese authorities.

I agree, I too think the fund has been used to launder money. Massive payouts to Oakley International and Bell Pottinger by way of example.

by **Keitei** 16.05.18 0:32

Sharon might be able to enlighten us more on the points you have raised Verdi.

I was hoping that my mother could have taken a close look at what is available, she was an accountant but she was never well enough to concentrate.

Maybe Esther McVey got out of there in a hurry for other reasons than what the press reported?

Then we had the accountants resign, so maybe there is something that isn't quite right & they exited PDQ?

by Guest 16.05.18 1:19

Ta for replying singlerose

I'll wait for Sharon to look in, or anyone else who might have something to offer. As the forum is titled 'Fraud Investigation' I wondered if the subject had been covered already.
I don't believe in the concept of 'the perfect crime' but I do believe in the possibility of 'the perfect cover-up' yes

. In this respect I think the McCanns are bullet proof.

It's customary with the establishment, if someone in a conspiracy gets a bit twitchy or too vocal, they are dealt with accordingly - like they disappear or are found dead.

I believe the case is that serious.

by **Keitei** 16.05.18 1:53

"I believe the case is that serious."

I agree Verdi. Either the McC's have something huge on somebody/persons very high up or somebody high up did something very serious to Madeleine.

by **sharonl** 16.05.18 20:39

We have very limited information to go on in the accounts and we have to rely upon the auditors report.

The way to prove fraudulent activity in a company would be look closely at the underlying records, for example, detailed invoices from the private investigators etc. Unfortunately we will never get to see these. But, this is something that the auditors should have addressed. They should also have made sure that the company was meeting its objectives i.e "searching for Madeleine" as stated in the directors report and as publicly claimed elsewhere. If the auditors were not satisfied that the accounts show a true and fair view, they should state this in their report. This may be one of the reasons that the auditor would resign.

If the directors have knowingly misled the public and received donations by false pretences, then the fund is obviously fraudulent.

It was also stated in the accounts that Madeleine was abducted. If Madeleine did die in the apartment and her parents were aware this, then this is clearly a false statement made in the accounts by the directors.

But why have the directors asked for an audit of this company? Why go to the expense when there is no need? Is it merely to add credibility to the accounts?

If the McCanns were ever brought to justice over Madeleine and it was proven that they were well aware of her demise, the issue of a fraudulent fund would be a crime committed in the UK. Given the level of Government support that they are receiving, I doubt very much that they would be prosecuted over here.

by Guest 16.05.18 23:13

So as I thought, as far as CMoMM is concerned - no way forward.

Shame.

by Guest 03.01.19 13:09

MADELEINE'S FUND: LEAVING NO STONE UNTURNED LIMITED Credit Report

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

If anyone feels like splashing out 20 quid smilie

you can buy it !

by **sharonl** 03.01.19 18:10

Still waiting for the accounts, they should have been filed by Dec 31st

Most are done online now and available immediately. If they were sent by post, they should have reached Companies House by 31st December and we would have a notice, in red, saying that they had been received and would be available soon.

Last year, the deadline for filing mysteriously changed from Dec 31 to March 31, this is something that is not readily available to other companies, so why the McCanns?

by Guest 05.01.19 13:18

I received this notification from companies house yesterday..

Hello,

Back in April 2015 you requested that we monitor [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] for any important changes.

The following changes have just been detected:

03 Jan 2019

The Company's Annual Accounts are now OVERDUE
The company accounts were expected to be submitted by 31 Dec 2018

by **sharonl** 06.01.19 0:03

They have the cheek to appeal to the public for donations to their supposedly diminishing funds but then incur penalties because they cannot be bothered to file their accounts on time.

by Guest 06.01.19 0:50

Maybe they can't find an auditor prepared to cook the books big grin

!

by **PeterMac** 06.01.19 10:47

Did HaysMacintyre ever give a reason for dumping the "Fund" without preparing final accounts ?
Did Esther McVey (lifetime bosom buddy of KM) ever give a reason for bailing out so soon after being appointed as a Director ?

Had they both had a chance to look closely at the books ?

by Guest 12.01.19 0:44

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by Guest 18.01.19 15:51

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by **Jill Havern** 18.01.19 16:45

"Donations can still be made...."

Best of both worlds - they don't have to worry about buying in supplies to send you to help with their non-existent search but they still want your money anyway.

by Guest 18.01.19 21:38

It's an utter disgrace - how bloody dare they continue to beg when the evidence is stacked against their innocence?

How bloody dare they beg for money to finance a hoax - and in the name of little Madeleine who is no longer in this world..

How bloody dare they - it makes my blood boil.

by **sharonl** 18.01.19 21:51

They're in too deep, far to deep. The pretence has to be maintained at all costs and it is costing them, or should I say the tax payers and the public.

by Guest 18.01.19 22:06

But but but but but but ......

What they need is to stfu

!

By their own admission they are no longer using private means to search, they said so when the Operation Grange 'investigation' was launched - nothing has changed in that direction.

Thinking further, they have never genuinely searched for Madeleine, it's a big scam - a tall tale - a faked abduction.

Now why might that be..

Kate McCann wrote:"I know that what happened is not due to the fact of us leaving the children asleep. I know it happened under other circumstances

."

by **sharonl** 18.01.19 22:23

B

Verdi wrote:But but but but but but ......

What they need is to !

By their own admission they are no longer using private means to search, they said so when the Operation Grange 'investigation' was launched - nothing has changed in that direction.

Thinking further, they have never genuinely searched for Madeleine, it's a big scam - a tall tale - a faked abduction.

Now why might that be..

Kate McCann wrote:"I know that what happened is not due to the fact of us leaving the children asleep. I know it happened under other circumstances

."

Believe it our not, there are occasions where Kate has told the truth even it it has been hidden in her comments.

by **PeterMac** 18.01.19 22:28

SharonL "Believe it our not, there are occasions where Kate has told the truth even it it has been hidden in her comments"

I know it wasn’t to do with us leaving them alone. It happened under different circumstances

I know more than you do. I know what happened. I was there.

"That's when I noticed that Madeleine was there”

“Not as bad as the night we found her.”

Press a button and we’d all be together.

by **sandancer** 18.01.19 22:54

" Did they really believe that a dog could smell the odour of death three months later from a body that had been so swiftly removed ?

I want to shout it from the rooftops .

Go on Kate , shout it , we are listening for Madeleines sake .

by Guest 04.02.19 12:27

I've just received this email from Companies House. The document can be purchased from Companies House if anyone fancies splashing out a fiver. I don't!

Company Monitoring Alert for MADELEINE'S FUND: LEAVING NO STONE UNTURNED LIMITED

Hello,
Back in April 2015 you requested that we monitor MADELEINE'S FUND: LEAVING NO STONE UNTURNED LIMITED for any important changes.
The following changes have just been detected:

03 Feb 2019
New Annual Accounts Available
For Financial Year Ending: 31 Mar 2018
Purchase a copy of this document for £4.99 + VAT

Company Accounts Last Made Up Date changed:
Was: 31 Mar 2017
Now: 31 Mar 2018

Company Accounts Next Due Date changed:
Was: 31 Dec 2018
Now: 31 Dec 2019

The Company's Annual Accounts are no longer overdue
The next due date for the Annual Accounts is now 31 Dec 2019
The latest Annual Accounts were submited 8 Jan 2019

Companies In The UK

by Doug D 04.02.19 14:47

No reason for anyone to pay anything. Jill posted up the relevant pages on:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Or you can view and print off all the pages from the Companies House website under 06248215.

by **PeterMac** 04.02.19 16:27

Back the original question - "is the "Fund" fraudulent, or might it be"

The legislation in question if the Fraud Act 2006, which you can read at

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[tricky to copy and paste because of the formatting, so I'll screen grab]
S. 2 is the relevant one here
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Note subsection 2, "A representation if false if –
(b) . the person making if knows that it is, OR MIGHT BE, untrue or misleading.

We know, know, that the McCanns are on record, right from the start, conceding that Madeleine was probably dead, and have repeated that at odd moments ever since.
They must therefore have known, known, that the claim that she was alive and well MIGHT HAVE BEEN untrue, or at least misleading.
So far as I am aware, they never publicly said words to the effect " Although some people may think she must by now be dead, and we accept that our actions in publicising her eye defect, and details of suspects may well have hastened that outcome, we nevertheless ask you to give up your savings and Pension and pocket money on the off-chance that she might still be alive . . "

I submit that the "Fund" falls squarely into the mischief aimed at by Section 2(b)

by **sharonl** 04.02.19 21:50

People donated to this fund because they believed, as told by the McCanns, that Madeleine was abducted and that the fund would be used for the search for her.

Was Madeleine really abducted?
Is the fund really for the search for her?

Or,

Were they accepting donations from the public under false pretences?

by Guest 04.02.19 22:02

Knowing is one thing - proving is another. Surely?

Look back over the 'funds' history. It all started as a 'place' for goodhearted folk to pay-in donations to assist the search. A limited company, not a charity, so transparency is not a requisite stipulation, although professed and expected under the circumstances.

Then it was declared a fight fund. Either way it could be said that public donations were made by choice with full knowledge of the fund's purpose.

I've said before and I'll say again, it's all hidden in the small print, as a limited company there will always be a get out clause - hence the reason they opted for a limited company rather than a charity. The reason offered for not opting for charity status was vapid in the extreme.

The name McCann is protected by a firewall of accomplished lawyers, I can't believe for a moment they would be stupid enough to lay themselves open to an investigation by the fraud squad.

There will be a get out clause.

by Guest 04.02.19 22:05

by **sharonl** 04.02.19 23:10

I can't believe that the McCanns have claimed back their expenses, £94 last year plus £288 which was owing to them, this year.

Everyone else is expected to donate but they cant even waive their petty expenses for their own daughter.

Did they ever repay the money that they used for their mortgage and various other things? And what about their personal legal expenses?