Madeleine 'detective' from U.S accused of swindling £300k (DM headline wrongly says only £30k) from search fund extradited

• Kevin Halligen will be flown to Washington on Thursday after losing his High Court appeal
  
• In 2008, Halligen's company signed a contract to help find Maddie, who went missing a year earlier
  

candyfloss wrote:Probably a silly question, but if he is accused of swindling the Madeleine Fund then why is he not facing charges here? Why are they sending him packing to the USA.....

maebee wrote:

candyfloss wrote:Probably a silly question, but if he is accused of swindling the Madeleine Fund then why is he not facing charges here? Why are they sending him packing to the USA.....

Hi Candy,

I think it's this: Kevin Halligen, 53, lost his final appeal before the High Court in London on Friday and will be flown to Washington on Thursday to face allegations of cheating former business partners out of £1.2 million

candyfloss wrote:

maebee wrote:

candyfloss wrote:Probably a silly question, but if he is accused of swindling the Madeleine Fund then why is he not facing charges here? Why are they sending him packing to the USA.....

Hi Candy,

I think it's this: Kevin Halligen, 53, lost his final appeal before the High Court in London on Friday and will be flown to Washington on Thursday to face allegations of cheating former business partners out of £1.2 million

Hi maebee, isn't that related to fraud in America though, nothing to do with this country? I was asking that if he is alleged to have swindled the Madeleine Fund, then surely if he is in this country then he should stay here to face charges if they are true. Surely this country takes precedence if a crime has been committed here?

He said he would use
his MI6 and CIA contacts and high-tech surveillance equipment in the
hunt but over six months he came up with no new leads.

maebee wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2248831/Madeleine-detective-U-S-accused-swindling-30k-extradited.html

He said he would use his MI6 and CIA contacts and high-tech surveillance equipment in the hunt but over six months he came up with no new leads.

T4two wrote:Hmmmm. Just because he came up with no new leads doesn't automatically mean that Halligen swindled the Fund out of anything.

REPLY: True. But was it ever intended that he would come up with 'a new lead', let alone 'find Madeleine'?

What if there just weren't any leads to come up with?

REPLY: You mean, the whole of the Fund and the succession of the private investigations was a scam?

Perhaps The Mail should ask Scotland Yard. After all, the Yard have been on the case for far longer than Halligen ever was and haven't come up with any leads either.

REPLY: Well, according to sources, as reported by the British mainstream media last month, Scotland Yard is examining the idea that Raymond Hewlett might have something to do with Madeleine's disappearance, or even personally 'stole' her, perhaps selling her on to a 'wealthy North African family'. And that is even after D.C.I. Redwood reported earlier this year (at the time of the new age-progressed picture of Madeleine and the release of Dr Kate McCann's book in paperback) that his 38-strong team were investigating '195 lines of enquiry' (= leads)

Does this mean that Scotland Yard have swindled the British taxpayer out of millions of pounds?

REPLY: It might mean that those who forced Scotland Yard to carry out this review have swindled the British taxpayer: The McCanns > The McCann Team > Rupert Murdoch > News International > Rebekah Brooks > David Cameron > Theresa May > Sir Paul Stephenson > D.C.I. Andy Redwood...

Now if Halligen had fabricated leads which were patently complete and utter rubbish, there would surely be a case for accusing him of swindling the Fund. But suppose Halligen were able to demonstrate that this kind of fabrication of leads was actually one of the main activities of the Fund itself, wouldn't action against Halligen by the fund be highly unadvisable?

REPLY: Yes, it would be impossible. But then if what you suggest is correct, it would give Scotland Yard the basis for arresting the entire McCann Team, and Halligen himself, on suspicion of perverting the course of justice, fruad, and obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception

There could of course be a quite simple explanation as to why the Fund or its directors have taken no action to recover the 'paltry' sum of 300k

REPLY: 500K PLUS expenses

or why the British police have not charged Halligen with a criminal offence - but try as I may, I just cannot think of one.

A self-styled security consultant accused of swindling the Madeleine McCann fund out of £300,000 is to be extradited to the United States this week to face fraud charges.

Ribisl wrote:

A self-styled security consultant accused of swindling the Madeleine McCann fund out of £300,000 is to be extradited to the United States this week to face fraud charges.

I am a bit confused. Who exactly is accusing him of 'swindling'?

Ribisl, just for the record, here are the key things said by Dr Kate McCann on pages 283-4 of the hardback edition of her book 'madeleine':

"We had one particularly bad experience with a man named Kevin Halligen (or Richard as we knew him). Halligen was the CEO of a private-investigation firm called Oakley International which was hired by Madeleine's Fund for six months from the end of March 2008. Oakley's proposal and overall strategy were streets ahead of all the others we'd considered and the company came highly recommended...we agreed that our contract with them would be sp[loit into three phases with a nbreak clause at the nd of ewach phase. This gave us an opportunity to terminate the contract at any of these points if we wished to do so without incurring financial penalties. An independent consultant was also employed...to liaise with Oakley and oversee [their] work...

"The first and second phases of the contract ran fairly smoothly...There is little doubt that at that stage progress was being made...

"...we began to have concerns. Feedback appeared to be less forthcoming and contact with certain members of the Oakley team dropped off...Rumours about Halligen prompted us to make enquiries before we decided whether or not we should extend our contracxt...The termination of the contract, in September 2008, was quite acrimonious...Several months later, one of the investigators subcontracted by Oakley contacted us to demand payment for his services. We had already settled Oakley's bill for this work months before, but apparently the company had not paid him...Over time several more unpaid subcontractors came to light. We were upset that...money provided by Madeleine's Fund might not ever have reached the people who had earned it. In Novemenbr 2009 we heard that Halligen had been arrested on suspicion of fraud...He is currently on remand...fighting extradition to the USA..."

Is it the DM reporter writing these headlines? Have the McCanns made a public complaint after appointing him in the first place?

REPLY: There is nothing to suggest that they have

Or is this simply a media campaign in their effort to disassociate themselves from someone who is being extradited to face fraud charges?

Ribisl wrote:Thanks Tony and apologies. I had read the book on my Kindle some time ago but couldn't recall that particular detail. E-books are great except when you want to flick through the pages quickly in search of references.

If their agreement was with Oakley International and their bills were settled prior to the termination of the contract, as Kate states, then surely they have no grounds for legally challenging Halligen, not for negligence or defrauding.

REPLY: I read this particular passage of Dr Kate McCann's book, which raises many more questions than it provides answers, with an unusually heavy dose of salt. I think actually, even if for a moment we accept all that we have been told by KM on these 2 pages as the unvarnished and whole truth about Halligen's involvement, that the McCanns do, on the face of it, have a legal cause of action against Halligen. These all appear to be possible:

Briefly:

* Breach of contract

* Deception (claiming he'd paid his 'subcontractors' when he hadn't)

* Fruad

* Obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception.

Other questions raised:

+ Who was the 'independent consultant' allegedly 'providing oversight'?

+ Why didn't the Fund Trustees/Directors and the McCann Team in general supervise this contract properly?

+ Why wasn't appropriate 'due diligence' undertaken by the McCann Team/The Fund?

+ Oakley, says KM, came 'highly recommended'. Oakley was a brand new company, formed after Madeleine was reported missing. Who was in a position to recommend Oakley.

AND:

Did Madeleine's Fund pay all these unpaid subcontractors? Or leave them to flounder? Did they make any attempt to recover monies from Halligen? If so, KM doesn't say so in her book.

OI's subcontractors would be the potential litigants if they really haven't been paid by OI for their share of work. Am I wrong, Tony?

You're right, but the subcontractors IMO could sue not only Halligen, but also those who contracted with him in the first place. Let's face it, it was because of the decisions (and failure to supervise) of the McCanns, Brian Kennedy and the Trustee Directors of The fund, not forgetting their 'independent consultant', that these subcontractors lost money

Ribisl wrote:

A self-styled security consultant accused of swindling the Madeleine McCann fund out of £300,000 is to be extradited to the United States this week to face fraud charges.

I am a bit confused. Who exactly is accusing him of 'swindling'? Is it the DM reporter writing these headlines? Have the McCanns made a public complaint after appointing him in the first place? Or is this simply a media campaign in their effort to disassociate themselves from someone who is being extradited to face fraud charges?

PeterMac wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:
Whilst all this was going on, the public were continually being asked to donate to the Fund, 'every penny of which will be used to further the search for Madeleine...'

1 Follow the money
2 Al Capone went to prison for tax evasion, not for murder, drugs, alcohol, extortion or anything else.
3 The "Fund" is an English Company, domiciled in England, and operating under and subject to English Law
4 There will be a forensic trace on all transactions, whether they have put them in the public domain or not. The solicitors and the accountant will not dare to destroy evidence.

For what it is worth, I think the "Fund" will be the ultimate downfall of a number of people.

Ribisl wrote:Private cash donations, for example, must be impossible to trace in any case. One of the objects of the Fund is 'to provide support, including financial assistance, to Madeleine's family' which pretty much covers any money they may have spent on themselves. Maybe I am missing something?

PeterMac wrote:[...]

For what it is worth, I think the "Fund" will be the ultimate downfall of a number of people.

Tony Bennett wrote:In my own case, Ribisl, the McCanns, via Carter-Ruck and Jacob Dean, barrister, have already racked up costs of over £150,000. I have it on the written record from Carter-Ruck that not a penny of Madeleine's Fund has been used to cover these costs (I think it is different in the case of McCanns v Amaral, I think they admit that public donations have been used for that four-year-long running action).

So, have they paid that £150,000-plus to Carter-Ruck from their own bank account (in which case the payments are traceable) or is a private donor paying Carter-Ruck direct? (in which case, again, there will clearly be an audit trail).

Ribisl wrote:

A self-styled security consultant accused of swindling the Madeleine McCann fund out of £300,000 is to be extradited to the United States this week to face fraud charges.

I am a bit confused. Who exactly is accusing him of 'swindling'? Is it the DM reporter writing these headlines? Have the McCanns made a public complaint after appointing him in the first place? Or is this simply a media campaign in their effort to disassociate themselves from someone who is being extradited to face fraud charges?