Re: FRAUDULENT FUND

by Guest 02.04.14 18:09

Nina wrote:I wonder how much of the cash donated, not via Paypal but in coinage and notes, actually went into the bank to be accounted for? Not it all I would wager.

That is a very good point Nina. Remember also Clarence telling people just to send money to Kate and Gerry in Leicester and it would get there. Wonder how many sent cheques too on such a basis rather than payable to the Fund..

by aiyoyo 02.04.14 18:32

Doug D wrote:Aiyoyo:

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

I should think so too!
However, it is not a given that damages (as in costs) will be awarded by default of a win, as is the case in UK.
Under Portuguese system, if team Amaral wins they will have to apply to Court for their costs to be reimbursed by the other side, and this will be subjected to appreciation by the Judge who has to approve it first. It's likely such costs reimbursement application will be approved to be borne by losing party mccanns.
Just saying as far I understand it, it is not automatically defaulted by a win. It needs to be addressed with the Court first.

‘Costs’ rather than ‘damages’ presumably.

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

Yeap, that's a separate matter altogether, which in my view Amaral won't pursue if it has to be pursued in the UK Court.
Not unless SY's review leads to a prosecution of the pair, it would be extremely difficult for Amaral to get a UK lawyer willing to represent him to start with.

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.

Unlike the overturn of injunction where appeal was made impossible by the Judgement, ID went ahead regardless using an unorthodox method (again) I heard, and got nowhere - as expected ? - despite her attempt at unorthodox method.
In that instance they had had to try non-withstanding understandably because that appeal matters in the scheme of things because of its co-relation to the impending libel trial. In the case of libel, once the ruling is against them it is game over for them, finished for them.
I'm inclined to believe they won't appeal not so much because of involving cost but more likely they are not stupid to waste money going against flow of tide that is against them. They will first have to exhaust the highest court in the land of Portugal before they can take it to the European Court, but I doubt they will, because Amaral's basic human right is the crux of the matter here. They won't stand a chance, not after the Appeal Court overturned their temporary injunction citing Amaral's right to freedom of expression.

If they lose, they must be desperate to get rid the serial loser, ie their midget lawyer who lost their case.
I can't see any lawyer in Portugal would want to take on their case just to file appeal for them, but because of who they are.
They would be left with a sore loser (out of no choice) to do their appeal or give her up and forget about appeal.
If they should stay with the loser ID to do the appeal against all odds, it's a double negative, not a vantage position to start an appeal, far from it.
I don't doubt the Mccanns even for their narcissism and greediness would be that stupid not to recognize a crashing defeat when it dares them in the face.

ID had mis-read their chance, promised them a pot of gold, used unorthodox method to file their case, only to beget a series of defeats, so say even if ID is arrogant enough to promise them appeal chances, the Mccanns would be wary of being lead down the same garden path, a case of once bitten twice shy.
Bearing in mind also that their fund will be running on empty after the defeat, can they still afford to let their lawyer plays russian roulette with their case, err IMO I doubt they will continue to pursue a lost cause.

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.

So long as they are still feeding that pink creature, the UK MSM will be led to a large degree as to what they can print.
While it is not C-R-able to print Court's process and judgement I doubt there will be full flood gates either. If anything be prepared for scathing pieces about how the Portuguese system let down the couple, painting them as victims of a foreign system.

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.

They took on more than they can chew out of greediness and if greediness should bring them down they truly deserved what's coming.
So long as they are free to spin they will spin it any which way they can so I doubt they will be further damaged by the limited reporting of the libel. There had been scant reports of the details of their claims and of their witnesses testimonies, I doubt the Judgement against them will get much detailed coverage, at most scant.

by ultimaThule 02.04.14 18:35

tigger wrote:
Nina wrote:I wonder how much of the cash donated, not via Paypal but in coinage and notes, actually went into the bank to be accounted for? Not it all I would wager.

Well, there were all those enveloppes sent to Kate and Gerry in Rothley ( cash in enveloppes making it to a destination x nr of times for the first time in the history of the Royal Mail imo). There were allthose boxes in the OC.

There were people pressing banknotes on Uncle Brian and no doubt other members of the McCann family.

It all adds up..

Plus the contents of the buckets passed round at football matches and other large scale public events, the cake sales at schools, the collections made by pensioners' groups around the country, the taxi fares which were foregone in order that relatives could donate the sums to the limited company.

As far as I'm aware, in addition to being downloaded to the receiver's bank account, any sums available in a PayPal account can also be sent to other accounts and used to purchase goods on the internet.

However, if £1.8 million is the sum total of every penny received from donations made in cash/PayPal/bank transfer, it seems to me that the amount raised is disproportionately low in relation to the number of visitors to the company's website in its first year of trading. .

by Cristobell 02.04.14 18:46

ultimaThule wrote:
tigger wrote:
Nina wrote:I wonder how much of the cash donated, not via Paypal but in coinage and notes, actually went into the bank to be accounted for? Not it all I would wager.

Well, there were all those enveloppes sent to Kate and Gerry in Rothley ( cash in enveloppes making it to a destination x nr of times for the first time in the history of the Royal Mail imo). There were allthose boxes in the OC.

There were people pressing banknotes on Uncle Brian and no doubt other members of the McCann family.

It all adds up..
Plus the contents of the buckets passed round at football matches and other large scale public events, the cake sales at schools, the collections made by pensioners' groups around the country, the taxi fares which were foregone in order that relatives could donate the sums to the limited company.

As far as I'm aware, in addition to being downloaded to the receiver's bank account, any sums available in a PayPal account can also be sent to other accounts and used to purchase goods on the internet.

However, if £1.8 million is the sum total of every penny received from donations made in cash/PayPal/bank transfer, it seems to me that the amount raised is disproportionately low in relation to the number of visitors to the company's website in its first year of trading. .

Enid O'Dowd's reports show that overall the Fund received nearly £4m, which would probably include the libel payouts from Express Group and News International and the proceeds from exhibit 'KH1'. The McCanns are big, big spenders.

by aiyoyo 02.04.14 18:48

ultimaThule wrote:
tigger wrote:
Nina wrote:I wonder how much of the cash donated, not via Paypal but in coinage and notes, actually went into the bank to be accounted for? Not it all I would wager.

Well, there were all those enveloppes sent to Kate and Gerry in Rothley ( cash in enveloppes making it to a destination x nr of times for the first time in the history of the Royal Mail imo). There were allthose boxes in the OC.

There were people pressing banknotes on Uncle Brian and no doubt other members of the McCann family.

It all adds up..
Plus the contents of the buckets passed round at football matches and other large scale public events, the cake sales at schools, the collections made by pensioners' groups around the country, the taxi fares which were foregone in order that relatives could donate the sums to the limited company.

As far as I'm aware, in addition to being downloaded to the receiver's bank account, any sums available in a PayPal account can also be sent to other accounts and used to purchase goods on the internet.

However, if £1.8 million is the sum total of every penny received from donations made in cash/PayPal/bank transfer, it seems to me that the amount raised is disproportionately low in relation to the number of visitors to the company's website in its first year of trading. .

To be factual, stat counter nr. does not equal to nr of visitors.
Likely their family members, friends, pros, and maybe even the kate herself were pushing up stat counters by repeated visits.
Say for example if Kate were to visit her own site to read, check for donations etc @ the rate of 100 times/day, the stat counter will incline accordingly.
Her 100 times visit/day does not equal to 100 visitors.
Stat Counter is not an accurate reflection of visitors but rather an accurate reflection of nr. of visits.

by **PeterMac** 02.04.14 19:25

Cristobell wrote:
Plus the contents of the buckets passed round at football matches and other large scale public events, the cake sales at schools, the collections made by pensioners' groups around the country, the taxi fares which were foregone in order that relatives could donate the sums to the limited company.

And let us never forget the bucket passed round at the evening "do" which was counted up in Rothley, and a note of thanks for the thousand pounds or so sent, only for it to have to be hurriedly "re-counted" when it was miraculously discovered that there were in fact 4,000.
I suspect because one donor had himself given more than the stated total !
Can't find the reference at the moment but I recall it was Liverpool - probably - an evening do,

by **Nina** 02.04.14 19:56

PeterMac wrote:
Cristobell wrote:
Plus the contents of the buckets passed round at football matches and other large scale public events, the cake sales at schools, the collections made by pensioners' groups around the country, the taxi fares which were foregone in order that relatives could donate the sums to the limited company.
And let us never forget the bucket passed round at the evening "do" which was counted up in Rothley, and a note of thanks for the thousand pounds or so sent, only for it to have to be hurriedly "re-counted" when it was miraculously discovered that there were in fact 4,000.
I suspect because one donor had himself given more than the stated total !
Can't find the reference at the moment but I recall it was Liverpool - probably - an evening do,

I remember that PeterMac, how very embarrassing. Not. There are, or were, collecting tins around the hospital where GM works. Who counts and logs all this money and ensures it is paid into a bank with a paying in slip.
On a similar note, well kind of. Is it possible to pay large amounts of cash into a bank? Don't you have to account where it has come from. Isn't it open to the accusation of money laundering?

by Guest 02.04.14 20:27

I have never heard that about the €4,000 before! Unbelievable.Not a surprise though!

Would love a link if possible to share.

by lj 02.04.14 20:30

Châtelaine wrote:IIRC and in the right order, Uncle Brian said [pretty early] the money would be used mainly for legal costs, the board of the "Fund" [at the time no McCanns on "board"] denied the Fund to be used for legal costs, Gerry said [just before or after] that the money would be used for their own investigators AFTER the PJ investigation had stopped ... At the time Richard Branson offered GBP 100,000 for a separate "fighting" fund, in case the McCs would be innocent, yet find themselves in court and Brian Kennedy [him of the double glazing, rugby teams and uncountable number of companies, which were "incestuous" IMO] pledges all of his fortune to assist them.

Also IIRC the pink one said, after the fund was filled up with the proceeds of the BEWK, that the original donations were all used, and the money that was in the fund was "made" by Kate and Gerry. Therefore they were free to choose how to use the money.

I am still trying to find a post about that, but somehow all my searches and up with "no results". Any one else remember this and maybe have a link?

by aiyoyo 02.04.14 20:49

Nina wrote:
PeterMac wrote:
Cristobell wrote:
Plus the contents of the buckets passed round at football matches and other large scale public events, the cake sales at schools, the collections made by pensioners' groups around the country, the taxi fares which were foregone in order that relatives could donate the sums to the limited company.
And let us never forget the bucket passed round at the evening "do" which was counted up in Rothley, and a note of thanks for the thousand pounds or so sent, only for it to have to be hurriedly "re-counted" when it was miraculously discovered that there were in fact 4,000.
I suspect because one donor had himself given more than the stated total !
Can't find the reference at the moment but I recall it was Liverpool - probably - an evening do,
I remember that PeterMac, how very embarrassing. Not. There are, or were, collecting tins around the hospital where GM works. Who counts and logs all this money and ensures it is paid into a bank with a paying in slip.
On a similar note, well kind of. Is it possible to pay large amounts of cash into a bank? Don't you have to account where it has come from. Isn't it open to the accusation of money laundering?

In their sort of circumstance where it is well known they are collecting for the Fund (Pte Ltd Co) I doubt the bank would be too unduly concerned about money laundering.
Rather if the cash rolling in were not properly accounted for in the books, that should be the real concern.
If Kate or Gerry suddenly deposit large amount of cash into their personal accounts during active collection for Fund period then that would be red flag.
If the fund is under investigation then it goes without saying Kate and Gerry account may become open books and in due time they may have to explain the sudden wind fall and also explain who were responsible for counting and accounting for the cash donations.

by plebgate 02.04.14 21:46

Bellisa wrote:I have never heard that about the €4,000 before! Unbelievable.Not a surprise though!

Would love a link if possible to share.

Here's a link:

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

The amount raised was first queried on 3A's and lo and behold the next day, after re-calculation, the final total came to pass IIRC.

by Guest 02.04.14 21:52

lj wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:IIRC and in the right order, Uncle Brian said [pretty early] the money would be used mainly for legal costs, the board of the "Fund" [at the time no McCanns on "board"] denied the Fund to be used for legal costs, Gerry said [just before or after] that the money would be used for their own investigators AFTER the PJ investigation had stopped ... At the time Richard Branson offered GBP 100,000 for a separate "fighting" fund, in case the McCs would be innocent, yet find themselves in court and Brian Kennedy [him of the double glazing, rugby teams and uncountable number of companies, which were "incestuous" IMO] pledges all of his fortune to assist them.

Also IIRC the pink one said, after the fund was filled up with the proceeds of the BEWK, that the original donations were all used, and the money that was in the fund was "made" by Kate and Gerry. Therefore they were free to choose how to use the money.

I am still trying to find a post about that, but somehow all my searches and up with "no results". Any one else remember this and maybe have a link?

He says it here in this video lj....towards the very end - shame about the bad hair day big grin

by lj 03.04.14 0:02

candyfloss wrote:
lj wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:IIRC and in the right order, Uncle Brian said [pretty early] the money would be used mainly for legal costs, the board of the "Fund" [at the time no McCanns on "board"] denied the Fund to be used for legal costs, Gerry said [just before or after] that the money would be used for their own investigators AFTER the PJ investigation had stopped ... At the time Richard Branson offered GBP 100,000 for a separate "fighting" fund, in case the McCs would be innocent, yet find themselves in court and Brian Kennedy [him of the double glazing, rugby teams and uncountable number of companies, which were "incestuous" IMO] pledges all of his fortune to assist them.

Also IIRC the pink one said, after the fund was filled up with the proceeds of the BEWK, that the original donations were all used, and the money that was in the fund was "made" by Kate and Gerry. Therefore they were free to choose how to use the money.

I am still trying to find a post about that, but somehow all my searches and up with "no results". Any one else remember this and maybe have a link?

He says it here in this video lj....towards the very end - shame about the bad hair day

Thanks Candy!! You're a miracle worker.

Yes that hair, maybe he's trying to cover his face??

He should have covered his mouth!

by Guest 03.04.14 1:00

Thanks plebgate that's sickening!
That would have been small bucks to the fund at that time,I wonder if faulty calculators have been used ever since.

by ultimaThule 03.04.14 1:43

aiyoyo wrote:
ultimaThule wrote:
tigger wrote:
Nina wrote:I wonder how much of the cash donated, not via Paypal but in coinage and notes, actually went into the bank to be accounted for? Not it all I would wager.

Well, there were all those enveloppes sent to Kate and Gerry in Rothley ( cash in enveloppes making it to a destination x nr of times for the first time in the history of the Royal Mail imo). There were allthose boxes in the OC.

There were people pressing banknotes on Uncle Brian and no doubt other members of the McCann family.

It all adds up..
Plus the contents of the buckets passed round at football matches and other large scale public events, the cake sales at schools, the collections made by pensioners' groups around the country, the taxi fares which were foregone in order that relatives could donate the sums to the limited company.

As far as I'm aware, in addition to being downloaded to the receiver's bank account, any sums available in a PayPal account can also be sent to other accounts and used to purchase goods on the internet.

However, if £1.8 million is the sum total of every penny received from donations made in cash/PayPal/bank transfer, it seems to me that the amount raised is disproportionately low in relation to the number of visitors to the company's website in its first year of trading. .

To be factual, stat counter nr. does not equal to nr of visitors.
Likely their family members, friends, pros, and maybe even the kate herself were pushing up stat counters by repeated visits.
Say for example if Kate were to visit her own site to read, check for donations etc @ the rate of 100 times/day, the stat counter will incline accordingly.
Her 100 times visit/day does not equal to 100 visitors.
Stat Counter is not an accurate reflection of visitors but rather an accurate reflection of nr. of visits.

Thank you for explaining the 'stat counter', aiyoyo. Although it's not a pretty sight, I can clearly visualise the look of glee on the faces of the McCanns and certain members of their respective families as they checked every hour on the hour to see how much more money had been given to the limited company by those who were gullible enough to believe the lies.

by **tigger** 03.04.14 6:45

Re Clarrie's foot in mouth : he's wrong as usual.

Any money in the account made from the book HAS to go to pay for the SEARCH.

Every single penny, otherwise the statement on the cover of the book is fraudulent.

by Gillyspot 03.04.14 8:06

tigger wrote:Re Clarrie's foot in mouth : he's wrong as usual.

Any money in the account made from the book HAS to go to pay for the SEARCH.

Every single penny, otherwise the statement on the cover of the book is fraudulent.

In my opinion that is why the Ltd Co now has "restricted funds" - These are book sales & the accountants would have insisted this money must be ring fenced for "search".

Few points

1) I wonder how Clarrie "knew" that all the initial donated funds were spent on "search"
2) MSM shared that the out of court settlements went into the "fund" yet they didn't (couldn't) share that it was not to be spent in the same manner as the original donations & WHAT were these further ££s spent on?
3) Clarrie seems to think this latest fundraiser & it's ££s raised was purely given by "supporters" who wouldn't mind what K & G (& WIDER family) spent the money on. How would (could) he know that ALL donors from the pub auction agreed?
4) Did (does) he CARE?

by aiyoyo 03.04.14 15:03

tigger wrote:Re Clarrie's foot in mouth : he's wrong as usual.

Any money in the account made from the book HAS to go to pay for the SEARCH.

Every single penny, otherwise the statement on the cover of the book is fraudulent.

Exactly, the money from the book more so should pay for the Search.
It's not reasonable to expect people to donate money for the search, while wanting to keep blood money from bewk for private use.
The book is written on the back of Maddie's disappearance so it's blood money.
Not digging into their own pockets to pay for the search is bad enough, not wanting to use profit from the bewk is unpardonable.

P.S. I tried to listen to him but couldn't put myself to suffer him so abandoned it less than half way through.
He was just bloody awful to listen to - all that bare face lying through his teeth without a care in the world of the consequences.

by HelenMeg 08.04.14 10:19

candyfloss wrote:
lj wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:IIRC and in the right order, Uncle Brian said [pretty early] the money would be used mainly for legal costs, the board of the "Fund" [at the time no McCanns on "board"] denied the Fund to be used for legal costs, Gerry said [just before or after] that the money would be used for their own investigators AFTER the PJ investigation had stopped ... At the time Richard Branson offered GBP 100,000 for a separate "fighting" fund, in case the McCs would be innocent, yet find themselves in court and Brian Kennedy [him of the double glazing, rugby teams and uncountable number of companies, which were "incestuous" IMO] pledges all of his fortune to assist them.

Also IIRC the pink one said, after the fund was filled up with the proceeds of the BEWK, that the original donations were all used, and the money that was in the fund was "made" by Kate and Gerry. Therefore they were free to choose how to use the money.

I am still trying to find a post about that, but somehow all my searches and up with "no results". Any one else remember this and maybe have a link?

He says it here in this video lj....towards the very end - shame about the bad hair day

I just find it hard to take seriously that this man is anything other than a buffoon. I know that Tony has had it claimed to him that CM is high up in MI5 but I just cant see it. It may well be true though and if it is, then the buffoon act is deliberate and very well done

by **PeterMac** 08.04.14 10:29

plebgate wrote:
Bellisa wrote:I have never heard that about the €4,000 before! Unbelievable.Not a surprise though!
Would love a link if possible to share.
Here's a link:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
The amount raised was first queried on 3A's and lo and behold the next day, after re-calculation, the final total came to pass IIRC.

My guess is that one donor had given £ 2000, anonymously,

and they got found out.
Also interesting that the amount goes from
"around £ 2,000"
to
"After adding all the money up the total raised at the race night was actually £5000 !
EXACTLY £5,000 ?
On a race night, donations, raffle, betting ,
EXACTLY £ 5,000 ?

They really have no sense.
If they had said £ 4,948 someone would have coughed up another 52 !

by **PeterMac** 30.06.14 7:48

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

A Sauce Said...
A blog about the McCanns, the media, money and the Met.
Sunday, 29 June 2014

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

Collection box at entrance to Ocean Club Tapas Bar in Praia da Luz,
July 2007, with hand-written note from Kate McCann.

So what did happen to the ‘reward money’ donated by News of the World readers in 2007 and handed to the McCanns’ company in April 2011?

One thing is clear: it wasn’t used to search for Madeleine.

News UK have stated that:
the Reward Fund payout was in addition to, separate from and not included within the payment of £550,000 for serialisation rights to Mrs McCann’s book.
According to documents at Companies House, income to Madeleine’s Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned Ltd in year ended March 31 2012, the period covering the April 2011 transfer, totalled £856,393.
That financial year, for the first time in the five-year reporting history of the company, income was split into Restricted and Unrestricted Funds.
This is a common practice among charities. Typically, a donor will request that the money given is used to support a particular aspect of the charity’s activities.
But Madeleine’s Fund isn’t a charity. It is a limited company.

Income under Restricted Funds is shown as £550,000, precisely the figure paid by News International for serialisation rights to Mrs McCann’s book.

On p8 of the accounts, it is noted:
Following the publication of Kate McCann’s book, ‘Madeleine: Our daughter’s disappearance and the continuing search for her’, £550,000 was donated for the direct costs of the search for, and the investigation into the disappearance of, Madeleine.

No explanation is offered in the accounts as to why it was deemed necessary to make this distinction.
Given that the ‘reward money’ does not appear within Restricted Funds, it can only have been accounted for within Unrestricted Funds.
It must form part of the £306,393 income other than that from News International’s serialisations rights payment.
Which, of course, means it could be used for expenditure other than direct costs of the search for Madeleine.
In year ended March 31 2012, that expenditure amounted to £272,764.

How did the Fund spend so much money in one year on costs other than directly searching for Madeleine?

The Fund’s website, findmadeleine.com, claims it operates to “the highest standards of transparency and accountability” but in reality, as the company’s accounts note, “the financial statements have been prepared in accordance with the special provisions relating to companies subject to the small companies regime within Part 15 of the Companies Act 2006 and in accordance with the Financial Reporting Standard for Smaller Entities (effective April 2008)”.

In practice, this means the Fund is required to offer much less information on its activities than it would if it was indeed a charity.

Here’s how that Unrestricted Funds expenditure of £272,764 is broken down within the published accounts:

Merchandising and Campaign Costs 242,727
Administration Expenses 24,909
Tax on surplus on ordinary activities 5,128

But what are those first two figures paying for?
According to the Director’s Report for that year, the Fund:
- continued to pay for a 24 hour, 7 days a week telephone line to receive and capture information provided by the general public worldwide
- provided part-time administrative support to aid the investigation and campaign to find Madeleine (campaign coordinator and media liaison)
- facilitated complete hand over of all material relating to Madeleine’s abduction held by the Fund to the MPS
- supported a small investigation team, including a Portuguese speaker to lead a private search for Madeleine. Since March 2012, private investigation of lines of enquiry has been suspended whilst the MPS review progresses. The private investigation team employed by the Fund continue to cooperate and work with the Metropolitan Police force as and when necessary.
- continued to fund the awareness-raising campaign to ensure that Madeleine is not forgotten and to encourage the general public to remain vigilant. This has included the running of the Find Madeleine website ([You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
- continued to fund and work in partnership with a specialist Portuguese communications agency to ensure that our message is communicates as widely and accurately as possible in Portugal.

The accounts offer us no guidance, but it might be reasonable to assume that those first four activities were met from Restricted Funds - where expenditure in that year amounted to an additional £234,086 - in that they appear to be directly related to ‘the search for Madeleine’.
(Alternatively, the ‘part-time administrative support’ may form part of the £24,909 Administration Expenses, met from Unrestricted Funds. The Fund doesn’t say.)
But how did the Fund spend nearly a quarter of a million pounds on Merchandising and Campaign Costs?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Perhaps some clues to the expenditure can be found back in 2008, when the Fund published its first set of accounts, covering May 2007 to March 2008.

Then it had offered, quite reasonably, a breakdown of its expenditure:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Extract from accounts of Madeleine's Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned Ltd
for year ending 31 March 2008.

That breakdown showed that of the £815k total expenditure, just £250k, a curiously round number, had been spent on ‘Search fees’.
Nearly £82k had been spent on ‘Awareness’, perhaps advertising costs. Over £37k had been spent on a rudimentary website.
£123k had been spent on Campaign Management, fees to PR professionals.
£26k had been spent on Media Monitoring, which Wikipedia notes as ‘a beneficial tool to evaluate the efforts and progress of a PR firm.’
But perhaps most surprising of all were some of the other costs identified.

Legal fees and expenses amounted to over £111k. What these legal fees covered remains unclear, but what they didn’t cover were legal fees associated with the constitution of the Fund itself. Those amounted to an additional £68k.
Administering the Fund cost another £36k in ‘Fund professional fees’, £13k for ‘Auditors’ remuneration’ and £7k ‘Accountancy fees’.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That would be the only occasion on which the Fund would offer any breakdown of its expenditure. For the next five years, it simply restricted itself to one figure for Merchandise and Campaign Costs, another for Administration expenses and a third for Tax

It would perhaps be wrong to compare the breakdown of expenditure in 2007/08 to that in 2011/12.
But it seems unlikely that News of the World readers who, in 2007, had given their cash as a reward for information leading to the safe return of Madeleine - and had been told that, in the event of the reward not being claimed, it would be paid instead to three children’s charities - ever envisaged that their donations would be used to pay lawyers, auditors, accountants and PR guys.

And with not a word of thanks, this time, from Kate and Gerry McCann.

by **tigger** 30.06.14 11:11

Gosh!

Then there was the £ 20.000,- or so donated by the Irish to an account held by a TV station. However, the money had been donated under the impression that the cause was a registered charity. When the TV channel discovered it wasn't, there was quite a tussle and I believe the matter was resolved by Mitchell with the expected outcome: after a long wait the money was paid into the Ltd. Co.

No doubt Mitchell wanted to make sure there'd be enough in the kitti to pay him.

by Guest 18.07.14 14:22

Fighting Fund (to fight who?)

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

Speaking at the launch, Mr McCann said: "This fund will be a vehicle to help our family get our darling, wee niece back."
It was also announced that any money raised not needed for the search for Madeleine would be used to help find missing children in the UK, Portugal and elsewhere.
"If, as a result of this fund, and as a result of getting Madeleine back, we can help other families in a similar situation that would be fantastic," Mr McCann added.

Does anyone know how much money was spent on this?

by **Enid O'Dowd** 18.07.14 14:28

BlueBag wrote:Fighting Fund (to fight who?)

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

Speaking at the launch, Mr McCann said: "This fund will be a vehicle to help our family get our darling, wee niece back."
It was also announced that any money raised not needed for the search for Madeleine would be used to help find missing children in the UK, Portugal and elsewhere.
"If, as a result of this fund, and as a result of getting Madeleine back, we can help other families in a similar situation that would be fantastic," Mr McCann added.

Does anyone know how much money was spent on this?

Presumably nothing has been spent to find other missing children as Madeleine has not been found, and looking for other children only happens when she is found/or it is proved she is dead.

by Guest 18.07.14 14:28

McCanns used fund to pay mortgage

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

Clarence Mitchell said: "The fund has always had the ability to assist the family financially if necessary."

Now I'm confused.

I thought money not spent on the search for Madeleine was going to be used to find missing children in the UK and Portugal.

by Guest 18.07.14 15:10

BlueBag wrote:McCanns used fund to pay mortgage

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

Clarence Mitchell said: "The fund has always had the ability to assist the family financially if necessary."

Now I'm confused.

I thought money not spent on the search for Madeleine was going to be used to find missing children in the UK and Portugal.

and maybe in Cloud Cuckooland?

by Newintown 18.07.14 18:59

BlueBag wrote:McCanns used fund to pay mortgage

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

Clarence Mitchell said: "The fund has always had the ability to assist the family financially if necessary."

Now I'm confused.

I thought money not spent on the search for Madeleine was going to be used to find missing children in the UK and Portugal.

It will be a miracle if there is 1p left from the "Fund" after the McCanns have paid all of their legal costs that have been accumulating for the past 7 years. No wonder they're really desperate to get their hands on the £1milllion+ from taking GA to court.

by **PeterMac** 23.08.14 23:23

Spot the difference.

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

Bottle blond, Crew cut, brunette, crew cut
whiney professional, whiney underclass.
Lots of money, no money
liar, liar, liar, liar,
Not yet found out, not yet found out, in prison, in prison.
Horrible, Horrible, Horrible, Horrible

by Google.Gaspar.Statements 24.08.14 7:48

PeterMac wrote:Spot the difference.

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

Bottle blond, Crew cut, brunette, crew cut
whiney professional, whiney underclass.
Lots of money, no money
liar, liar, liar, liar,
Not yet found out, not yet found out, in prison, in prison.
Horrible, Horrible, Horrible, Horrible

Non-abduction dead, Non-abduction dead, Non-abduction alive, Non-abduction alive.

by roy rovers 03.10.16 23:34

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

Trump's fund has been told to 'cease and desist' in New York. Failure to do so would be deemed as 'a fraud upon the people of the state of New York'.