Madeleine McCann: Firm searching for missing girl gets £100,000 cash boost

by **Jill Havern** 09.01.19 23:06

Madeleine McCann: Firm searching for missing girl gets £100,000 cash boost

The company set up by Kate and Gerry McCann - 'Find Madeleine - Leaving No Stone Unturned' - got the extra cash from royalties on back of Kate's book on her daughter's disappearance

By
Martin Fricker

21:43, 9 JAN 2019
Updated21:45, 9 JAN 2019

A company set up by Kate and Gerry McCann to fund the search for their daughter has had a boost in profits.

“Find Madeleine – Leaving No Stone Unturned” has more than £800,000 in assets, after making nearly £100,000 in the past year.

The company recorded losses in recent years as donations dwindled.

But its coffers have now swelled to £823,332 – partly due to proceeds from Kate’s book about Madeleine’s disappearance.

She donated £84,096 in royalties.

The former GP wrote “Madeleine” in 2011 to raise funds for the search and the book remains a best-seller.

Find Madeleine... was set up by the couple in 2007 to manage the public money that flooded in.
The 2018 figure is up by nearly £100,000 on the previous year.

The company’s main activity is to “secure the safe return to her family of Madeleine McCann”.

Scotland Yard’s investigation into Madeleine’s disappearance from an apartment in Praia da Luz, Portugal, in 2007, aged three, has so far cost £11.75million.

The boost to the fund to find Madeleine comes just weeks after the parents of Madeleine McCann said they will never give up hope in the search for their daughter.

In a brief but poignant festive message, Kate and Gerry thanked all their supporters for their “kind and continuing good wishes” and say they “dearly miss” Maddie.

They urged: "May 2019 be a peaceful and positive one for us all.”

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-firm-searching-missing-13835272

by **Hobs** 10.01.19 0:42

Are they claiming they sold enough books last year to 'donate' £84,096 in royalties?
That is an awful lot of books given it isn't even a new book having been printed in 2011 originally.
Where has this new money come from?
Why has it made an appearance this year?

At least we are clearly told it is a company and not a fund with the cleverly disguised very subtle persuasion, shall i call it, that it is a charity even though they cannot claim it to be so, it being left up to the reader/support to infer, and that they have skipped around it being an actual company and referred to it as the fund almost from the get go although certain journalists and supporters still don't get it.

by **Jill Havern** 10.01.19 8:15

I wonder if they realise that the Fund is at the centre of the enquiry, and are now desperately trying to regularise what they have siphoned off over the years,
by putting it back before the Annual audit and Accounts ?
Just a thought.

The 'Sun Online' journalist, Tracey Kandohla: "Some of the savings have been siphoned off from the Find Maddie Fund into a fixed asset account, which financial experts have advised them to do. It can be used for purchases like buying a house, or building equipment."

by **PeterMac** 10.01.19 8:31

. . . the book remains a best-seller.

Madeleine: Our daughter's disappearance and the continuing search for her Paperback – 10 May 2012
by Kate McCann (Author)

Hardcover
from £0.01

Amazon Bestsellers Rank: 6,881 in Books

by Doug D 10.01.19 8:37

Hobs:

Are they claiming they sold enough books last year to 'donate' £84,096 in royalties?

This £84k was mentioned in last years (March 2017) accounts as a 'post balance sheet event', therefore the transfer was made sometime between March 2017 & Jan 2018.

I can't imagine publishers are particularly quick in paying out royalties, they gave an advance up front and then try and claw it back, so there could easily be a couple of years lull from book sales to payment. The payment would initially have gone to KM, so she could sit on it for a time also, before transferring it across in accordance with the 'all royalties' sticker on the book.

by **PeterMac** 10.01.19 8:39

err, umm, Err, why wasn't the money in the Fund in the first place ?
How much more has been stashed in the McCann's various account (s) ?

Madeleine McCann: Firm searching for missing girl gets £100,000 cash boost M10

THINK AL CAPONE ! ! !

by **PeterMac** 10.01.19 8:41

Thanks Doug D. Makes more sense now

by **PeterMac** 10.01.19 9:40

If only the Accounts were as transparent as this . . .

Madeleine McCann: Firm searching for missing girl gets £100,000 cash boost 0c8c7510

by Doug D 10.01.19 9:43

I wonder if they realise that the Fund is at the centre of the enquiry, and are now desperately trying to regularise what they have siphoned off over the years,
by putting it back before the Annual audit and Accounts ?
Just a thought.

Wishful thinking I reckon Jill.

Although we have seen nothing much of any detailed information in the accounts since March 2014, when Companies House published ‘Page 11’ , scheduling the income & expenditure, (which I suspect was submitted by the accountants in error as it had not been submitted previously), I suspect Tracey’s statement below is more down to her journalistic incompetence, rather than actually meaning what it seems to say:

The 'Sun Online' journalist, Tracey Kandohla: "Some of the savings have been siphoned off from the Find Maddie Fund into a fixed asset account, which financial experts have advised them to do. It can be used for purchases like buying a house, or building equipment."

£490k was transferred from Current to Fixed Assets in y/e March 2016, which we subsequently learned was an investment portfolio, comprising stocks and shares and probably some property too and I am reasonably confident this is what Tracey is talking about.

I know we’ve had the ‘just send cash in an envelope’ nonsense and without income and expenditure accounts can’t actually tell what has come in and just gone out again, but in reality public donations and ‘high quality’ sales over the last few years must surely be pretty minimal.

This £490k has now grown to £594k, largely down to an £80k revaluation in the 2017 accounts, which I suspect could well have been down to property revaluation, as if it was just stocks and shares, they have done incredibly well. (The FTSE now is pretty much at the same level it was in 2014, although it has had some good peaks during this time)

by Doug D 10.01.19 10:04

Book monies transferred into the fund:

March 2012   £550k to restricted, £138k  to unrestricted

March 2013   Nil

March 2014   £400k

March 2015   Probably nil

March 2016   Probably nil

March 2017   Probably nil

March 2018   £84k

From memory there was talk of a £1m advance for the book and maybe this was paid in two parts.

There were also the serialisation rights monies, but the publishers could have taken that back themselves, depending on the ‘advance’ agreement.

by **sharonl** 10.01.19 20:41

So the prime suspects, directors, the child's parents who not only should have paid this money directly to the fund after clearly stating that ALL royalties would be donated to the fund, and who have used the the fund monies for their own personal expenses, not to mention their legal fees in an attempt to clear their names and sue many, and the employment of PR specialists and dodgy cops who mis-directed the investigation, created false evidence and created stories that were later sold to the media, have suddenly decided to pay a little something back into the to fund and create this non-news about the fund getting a boost. But why? To save face? To advertise the novel? To keep the fund afloat?

When did this donation take place? 31st March perhaps?

What has happened to the other income from the novel?

by Verdi 10.01.19 20:50

Martin Fricker is a very silly .... err .... person spin

.

Madeleine McCann: Firm searching for missing girl gets £100,000 cash boost PopeyeUniqlo

You ride tandem .... ?

by **sharonl** 10.01.19 22:19

Verdi wrote:Martin Fricker is a very silly .... err .... person .

You ride tandem .... ?

Yes, what a fool he his. He probably made a few quid or got a promise of being nominated for an award of some kind, fine in the short term but really he has shown himself up to be a complete idiot, an un-informed amateur blogger. He has of course, lost all credibility. Why on earth do these people do it? Its professional suicide.

by Verdi 11.01.19 0:28

Why on earth do these people do it? Its professional suicide.

No integrity .... no professionalism .... no morals.

They'd sell their souls to the devil for want of a farthing. Look no further than Clarence Mitchell.

by **PeterMac** 11.01.19 7:34

Money sent in Mitchell's egregious 'brown envelopes' has never been accounted for. Given the intellectual and critical level of people who believed the initial story I suspect it may have been a not inconsiderable amount.
We now know that money clearly and publicly earmarked for the "Fund" (ALL Royalties . . .) has first passed through a private bank account.
Is there a full accounting trace on this ? Amazon et al. will know exactly how much was paid, and even a half decent Auditor would want to see that document as part of the reconciliation process.

The suspicion - unworthy though it undoubtedly is, C-R - might be that a certain amount of skimming or rounding down might have taken place.

The public were promised transparency. We are given Opacity.

by G-Unit 11.01.19 9:40

The 84K was post-tax so if my calculatuibs are correctthe actual sales were £140,160 (less 40% tac = £84,096)

Typicaal royalties on paperbacks is 10% tops.

The paperback is selling for £ 7.19 so that's 72p to the author for each copy sold.

£ 140,160 devided by.72p = 194,866 copies sold. That seems like a lot. (feel free to question my figures, naths isn't my strongest subject)

by Doug D 11.01.19 10:16

PeterMac:

‘Even a half decent Auditor’

Is there such a thing? They are paid to say everything is fine and if they start to challenge too many things will get the chop.

Senior accountancy management would soon come down hard on the career progression of anyone who didn’t toe the party line and started costing them business.

The government don’t help with the easing of regulation, which allowed the Mc’s to get away with the complete nonsense that is now their acceptable ‘small company’ accounting requirements. Disclosure was bad enough before these new regulations were introduced.

UK accountancy firms face major overhaul under new plans

· BBC News 18 December 2018
·
Snips:

The UK's Big Four accountancy firms are facing a major shake-up under reforms proposed by the competition watchdog.
The review follows high-profile company collapses such as construction firm Carillion, which was audited by KPMG.
The CMA said if its proposals "are not far-reaching enough", it "will persist until the problems are addressed".
"Companies choose their own auditors," said the CMA.
"As a result, we have seen too much evidence of them picking those with whom they have the best 'cultural fit' or 'chemistry', rather than those who offer the toughest scrutiny."
The CMA said "robust reform" was needed. Businesses should be audited by the most challenging firm - not the cheapest.
The Financial Reporting Council, which regulates the accountancy sector, has also been under review and plans have been put forward to toughen up the regulation of major audit firms.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=15&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjqn42duuXfAhXFKewKHdO3CxEQFjAOegQIAhAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fbusiness-46591575&usg=AOvVaw2FVgP4khEi3xWWRGdL01X6

by Liz Eagles 11.01.19 11:29

PeterMac wrote:Money sent in Mitchell's egregious 'brown envelopes' has never been accounted for. Given the intellectual and critical level of people who believed the initial story I suspect it may have been a not inconsiderable amount.
We now know that money clearly and publicly earmarked for the "Fund" (ALL Royalties . . .) has first passed through a private bank account.
Is there a full accounting trace on this ? Amazon et al. will know exactly how much was paid, and even a half decent Auditor would want to see that document as part of the reconciliation process.

The suspicion - unworthy though it undoubtedly is, C-R - might be that a certain amount of skimming or rounding down might have taken place.

The public were promised transparency. We are given Opacity.

Slightly off topic and offering up an example of auditor reports is the childlike presentation of Kids Company's accounts.

by Doug D 11.01.19 11:38

PeterMac:

‘Even a half decent Auditor’

As an addition to the above, the balance sheets in the accounts for the last two years, audited by the new guys up in Leicester are both incorrect.

In the 2017 balance sheet, the 2015 reserve figures have been carried forward as 2016, with a balancing adjustment of £31352 to make the figures balance. The 2016 figures are then shown as 2017, again with a random balancing figure of £1546 to make the figures balance.

This incorrect 2017 figure then again carries forward to the 2018 balance sheet and the 2017 figures show for 2018, with a balancing £94519 to make the figures balance.

If it is acceptable for a 'half decent auditor' to sign off these accounts, I hate to think what a poor auditor will get away with!

by Doug D 11.01.19 12:30

G Unit @ #16

I think there are far too many unknowns to even start trying to concoct such a figure for book sales.

We don't know what the original advance was or the terms therein, although the papers quoted £1m I think. This would have been a gross figure in any event. Was this for the initial runs of so many hardback copies, followed up a few months later by so many paperbacks, as is the norm? We simply don’t know.

The two previous transfers of £550k & £400k are such round figures we have no idea of the actual basis for these. Is this latest £84k the balancing royalty figure or is there more in the pipeline? As for tax and allowable expenses, which would be down to KM, again we haven’t a clue.

These two amounts plus the latest £84k have been placed in the ‘restricted’ side of the accounts, whereas £138k in y/e March 2012 was placed in the ‘unrestricted’ side, so what did this £138k relate to and why did they decide to treat it differently?

Did the fee for newspaper serialisation rights get paid to KM, or was it clawed back under the terms of the advance? Similarly, what about any fees for appearances under the book publishing tour?

I can see no real justification for even creating a ‘restricted’ category in the accounts.

This is usually a category created in charity accounts (which we know this is not) whereby the donors (in this case, only KM), have their gifts specifically designated for a purpose.

The fund is ‘to secure the safe return……and to procure that M’s abduction is thoroughly investigated………..and…..abductors……….identified and brought to justice’.

The 2012 accounts stated the £550k transfer was ‘donated for the direct costs of the search for, and the investigation into the disappearance of, Madeleine’, so why is there even a need to split the fund?

The stickers on the book and declaration purely said ‘all royalties donated to Madeleine’s Fund’.

I suspect this ‘restricted’ category was introduced (by KM as ‘donor’ in 2012, but for the first time this year some other donations [net £1803, we don’t know the actual value of them] have also been classified as such) to try and make it seem a bit more ‘charity-like’ and also to try to ring-fence the monies away from any possible court case cost claims.

However this is purely supposition and we don’t actually know the thinking behind it.

by Casey5 11.01.19 16:40

It doesn't look as if Goncalo Amaral has profited by this large donation to the fund, how can it be that he has stillnot had his costs paid by the McCanns for cases against him brought solely by the McCanns?
The Portuguese Supreme Court has the final say in these proceedings and they found for Senor Amaral.
The ECHR appeal, if it is even going ahead, has nothing whatsoever to do with Goncalo Amaral so why hasn't he been paid?

by Liz Eagles 11.01.19 17:22

Doug D wrote:G Unit @ #16

I think there are far too many unknowns to even start trying to concoct such a figure for book sales.

We don't know what the original advance was or the terms therein, although the papers quoted £1m I think. This would have been a gross figure in any event. Was this for the initial runs of so many hardback copies, followed up a few months later by so many paperbacks, as is the norm? We simply don’t know.

The two previous transfers of £550k & £400k are such round figures we have no idea of the actual basis for these. Is this latest £84k the balancing royalty figure or is there more in the pipeline? As for tax and allowable expenses, which would be down to KM, again we haven’t a clue.

These two amounts plus the latest £84k have been placed in the ‘restricted’ side of the accounts, whereas £138k in y/e March 2012 was placed in the ‘unrestricted’ side, so what did this £138k relate to and why did they decide to treat it differently?

Did the fee for newspaper serialisation rights get paid to KM, or was it clawed back under the terms of the advance? Similarly, what about any fees for appearances under the book publishing tour?

I can see no real justification for even creating a ‘restricted’ category in the accounts.

This is usually a category created in charity accounts (which we know this is not) whereby the donors (in this case, only KM), have their gifts specifically designated for a purpose.

The fund is ‘to secure the safe return……and to procure that M’s abduction is thoroughly investigated………..and…..abductors……….identified and brought to justice’.

The 2012 accounts stated the £550k transfer was ‘donated for the direct costs of the search for, and the investigation into the disappearance of, Madeleine’, so why is there even a need to split the fund?

The stickers on the book and declaration purely said ‘all royalties donated to Madeleine’s Fund’.

I suspect this ‘restricted’ category was introduced (by KM as ‘donor’ in 2012, but for the first time this year some other donations [net £1803, we don’t know the actual value of them] have also been classified as such) to try and make it seem a bit more ‘charity-like’ and also to try to ring-fence the monies away from any possible court case cost claims.

However this is purely supposition and we don’t actually know the thinking behind it.

The only supposition the general public had in 2007 was to send money in envelopes to Rothley or the NatWest bank to help search for a little girl abducted in Portugal. No-one supposed their donations would be used for litigation, PR companies, crazy private investigation rip off merchants and endless appeals.

No-one supposed Madeleine's siblings would be used to gather funds in their schools.

No-one supposed Madeleine's mother would use her own son in a Portuguese court to say he had been upset on a school bus by something he had heard on the bus radio about the policeman who was being sued for telling his truth.

No-one could have supposed the exploitation of Madeleine's siblings in primary, junior and senior school and the fund raising travesty.

by Doug D 11.01.19 17:32

Tracey late on parade with this but still manages to twist it a bit and chuck in an ‘exclusive’ tag.

No longer ‘buoyed’ thank goodness, but a couple of ‘incredibly grateful’s and a ‘very encouraged’ thrown into the mix.

CM, if he actually said it, seems to confirm my thoughts above about the reasons behind the ‘restricted funds’ designation in the accounts:

‘He added: “Having more than £¾million sitting in fund sounds like a lot of money but Kate and Gerry worry that one day it could be swallowed up in legal fees and a potential libel payout to former Portuguese police officer Mr Amaral.”

As for a rainy day fund to 'fight a legal battle against.....(GA)', does Tracey not understand the difference between tenses. They lost that fight a long time ago.

Madeleine McCann parents Kate and Gerry ‘storing £100k cash boost in special account to fight legal battle against Portuguese ex-cop’

Kate and Gerry received a 'welcomed' cash boost which they are 'keeping for a rainy day'

EXCLUSIVE By Tracey Kandohla 11^thJanuary 2019

MADELEINE McCann's parents are storing £100,000 in a special account to help them fight a legal battle against a Portuguese ex-cop, it's been claimed.
Kate and Gerry McCann received the "very welcoming" cash boost to a fundto help them find their daughter which they are "keeping for a rainy day".

The main aim of “Find Madeleine – Leaving No Stone Unturned” is to "secure the safe return to her family of Madeleine McCann”.
It comes as the Met Police were handed £150,000 from the public purse to carry on the investigationfor Maddie, who went missing in Portugal in 2007.
The couple have been rewarded with assets to the Maddie Fund of £822 382, according to latest accounts filed this week to Companies House.
This has soared from £727,508 in the last financial year to the end of March 2018 by £94,874.

The main increase was from Kate's best seller 2011 book “Madeleine”, which was re-sold in 2017 for the 10th anniversary of the youngster’s abduction.
Royalties of £84,096 came from the book sale with a total of £85,899 being transferred to a restricted fund.
A source close to heart doctor Gerry and ex-GP Kate, both 50, of Rothley, Leics, said: “That money goes into a special account for a rainy day.
"It can be used at a later date in the search for Madeleine or to help her parents fight their on going legal battle against Goncalo Amaral.

Home Office 'to give Scotland Yard another £154,000 to fund Madeleine McCann search'
“The balance has increased, largely as a result of further royalties from Kate's book, all of which she has given to the Fund and they say is very welcoming.”
Maddie went missing while on holiday with her family in Portugal - a £12million police investigation has desperately tried to find out what happened to her.
In November, the Met was given a further £150,000 to help in their search for the youngster.
The Home Office was slammed by the mum of Charlene Downes, who went missing in 2003, for handing out the money.

Karen Downes, 53, said other missing kids are "simply being forgotten".
Last year a study found that Maddie's parents, Kate and Gerry, were targeted with more than 150 abusive messages from social media users each day.
Psychologist Dr John Synott estimated there were between 100 and 150 abusive comments directed on Twitter, Facebook and on online McCann message boards every day.
Detectives have refused to discuss details of the “important final lines of inquiry” they are pursuing.
Madeleine McCann parents' spokesman reveals 'only two or three people on the planet really know what happened to Maddie'
A Scotland Yard spokesperson said: “We cannot give a running commentary on the investigation while it is ongoing.”
The McCanns said they are “incredibly grateful” to the Home Office for approving Scotland Yard’s request last autumn for more money amid stringent Government cutbacks.
Family spokesman Clarence Mitchell said: “They are very encouraged that the Met Police still believe there is work left to be done in the search for their daughter and they remain incredibly grateful to the Home Office for providing an extra budget for the investigation.
"Beyond this they cannot comment on the ongoing operation.

"But they appreciate everything the authorities have done and are doing to get a resolution after all this time. It gives them hope that one day they may finally find out what happened to their daughter.”
He added: “Having more than £3/4million sitting in fund sounds like a lot of money but Kate and Gerry worry that one day it could be swallowed up in legal fees and a potential libel payout to former Portuguese police officer Mr Amaral.”
The seven-and-a-half year Maddie inquiry codenamed Op Grange has been given more funding to keep it going until the end of March. So far it has cost the public £11.75 million.
A Home office spokesperson previously said: “We have confirmed that Special Grant funding of £150,000 will be provided to the Metropolitan Police Service for the six-month period to 31 March 2019. This is an ongoing police investigation.”
A Yard spokesperson added: “The inquiry has not reached a conclusion and we’re continuing with focus and determination.”
Ex police chiefs and some members of public have previously slammed the Maddie inquiry as a waste of public money and officers’ time despite it being drastically scaled down over the past few years.

We pay for your stories! Do you have a story for The Sun Online news team? Email us at tips@the-sun.co.ukor call 0207 782 4368 . You can WhatsApp us on 07810 791 502. We pay for videos too. Click hereto upload yours.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8169212/madeleine-mccann-parents-storing-100k-cash-account/

by Guest 16.01.19 15:54

Operation grange ended a long time ago,the supposed money given
is a hoax to pacify certain people .The police know what happened
and I believe they have been told to say they are looking at
lead after lead by people in suits who don't want the truth to come out.
Madeleine is no more.rip