ACCOUNTS 2013

by jeanmonroe 09.01.14 17:45

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

by Guest 09.01.14 17:50

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

by jeanmonroe 09.01.14 17:55

There were no employees in the year?

So what is C Mitchell?

Still getting £30,000 (40%) per annum, of his 'salary' from the 'Find Madeleine Fund'

by aiyoyo 09.01.14 17:57

Page 2 (fourth page from the top) has all the interesting bits but I cant copy and paste for some reason.

Can someone please extract page 4 and post up ?

Witnesses expenses are paid from the Fund, part of info on page 2.

by bobbin 09.01.14 18:43

aiyoyo wrote:Page 2 (fourth page from the top) has all the interesting bits but I cant copy and paste for some reason.

Can someone please extract page 4 and post up ?

Witnesses expenses are paid from the Fund, part of info on page 2.

bobbin Just re-pasting this here from the Fraudulent Fund thread.
Today at 7:31 pm

Doug D wrote:Nothing earth-shattering.

As at 31st March 2013 just over £400k left in the pot. (3/12 £474k)

Income £70k (3/12 £856k, with £550k from book)

Merchandising & Campaign Costs £115k (3/12 £476k)

Admin Expenses £24k (3/12 £25k)

Deficit for year £59k (3/12 Surplus £350k)

There were no employees in the year (3/12 None)

Fund ‘covered expenses for witnesses giving evidence in a libel trial in Lisbon against GA’

Interest earned only £323, (even 1% on £400k + would give £4k) but it may be kept in a current account to offset bank charges possibly.

I’m sorry but I can’t resist it.
The Auditors report does cover ‘related notes’ and not just the figures. I just hope that:
‘Madeleine’s Fund is governed by a Board of Directors who meet on a regular basis, approximately every month. During the year, there were 5 meetings’
does not reflect on the rest of the figures.

.................... bobbin said .....

These are the accounts for "year ending 31st March 2013", so the 'attendance expenses' for the recent Pike, Mother, Wright and old uncle tom cobbley and all...Libel case should come since this date, i.e. in this current year's accounts, to be filed presumably before 31 Dec 2014.
Or were there attendance expenses of notable value up to 31st March 2013 that I have not noticed. spin

by truthfultiger 09.01.14 19:27

The fund has debtors... Why would a fund like this have debtors? Am I missing something? Also why are some of the funds listers restricted on the income expenditure page?

by Gillyspot 09.01.14 19:38

truthfultiger wrote:The fund has debtors... Why would a fund like this have debtors? Am I missing something? Also why are some of the funds listers restricted on the income expenditure page?

Only way I can see this fund having debtors is if they have paid in advance for something eg utillities. They are normally not considered debtors but are usually know as a prepayment.

The restricted funds in the income relate to monies received from sales of Kate's book that are promised to be spent on the "search" so not to be used for marketing, PR, suing etc.

On another note I see that (combined-restricted & unrestricted) expenditure on marketing etc has gone from nearly £500k in y/e 2012 (made up of £234k restricted & £242k unrestricted) to only £116k (approx) in y/e 2013 (made up of £97k restricted / £18k unrestricted).

by truthfultiger 09.01.14 19:45

Ah, that explains the restricted funds bit thanks. I agree though, that it would be a strange categorisation if prepayment of utilities etc is the explanation for the debtors figure.

by **Hobs** 09.01.14 20:26

There we have it.

An admission the fund is being used to pay for the libel case against Goncalo Amaral and others.

The relevant piece of text is on page 2

covered expenses for witnesses giving evidence in a libel trial against Goncalo Amaral (former coordinator of the Portugues investigation to fine Madeleine)
Mr Amaral published a book in 2008 and produced a documentray and DVD in 2009 which claimed Madeleine was dead and her parents faked an abduction and concealed her body.
This has caused vast damage to the search for Madeleine in Portugal (where it is most likely information relating to madeleine's abduction and whereabouts will come from)

The board felt that an attempt to halt the damage was vital in order to further the search for Madeleine, hence taking this course of action.

And they told the sheeple the money would not be used for legal expenses.

When they lose will the fund be emptied to pay the legal fees of Goncal and the others as well as their own legal fees as well as compensation.

One also needs to ask how have the lawyers for their failed appeals been paid was it from a supporter or the fund?
Carter-Ruck will also be looking to be paid especially since they can claim their services were obtained by deception, and that had they known the truth they would either have refused to job or charged them the normal fees.

This could be fun, let's see pinky spin

this

by aiyoyo 09.01.14 20:48

Page 2 has a lot more explanatory notes about how the fund was spent, including one of part time administrative expense to aid investigators (not verbatim) so I am keen for that page alone to be pasted up. Anyone knows how to C&P from pdf format ?

by ultimaThule 09.01.14 21:05

Another set of non-transparent accounts of the type we've come to expect from the McCanns' lifestyle fund.

Enid O'Down has implied she will come back here: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] after she has reviewed this latest example of creative accounting and it seems to me that, in the interests of continuity, there's a case to be made for merging this thread with PeterMac's earlier one.

by margaret 09.01.14 21:15

truthfultiger wrote:The fund has debtors... Why would a fund like this have debtors? Am I missing something? Also why are some of the funds listers restricted on the income expenditure page?

No l've been wondering about the creditors, who owes them over £29000? Can't be utilities at that amount.

by aiyoyo 09.01.14 21:25

Admin Expenses at $24K seems rather high.
What admin could there be in a non-active Pte Ltd Co. ?
Not as if it is a trading co!

Paying Kate to check email or monitor feedback on website ?

by Gillyspot 09.01.14 21:27

margaret wrote:
truthfultiger wrote:The fund has debtors... Why would a fund like this have debtors? Am I missing something? Also why are some of the funds listers restricted on the income expenditure page?

No l've been wondering about the creditors, who owes them over £29000? Can't be utilities at that amount.

Creditors are who a company owes. Not who owes a company. - So we can surmise that McCann Fund owed £29k to other companies at the time of the end of year accounts. IMO £29k is not a lot based upon NMA (net monthly account) trading terms. Seems they don't get a lot of credit (or ask for it).

by ultimaThule 09.01.14 21:29

I hope the two threads can be merged as these latest accounts need to be set against previous years in order to see how much 'the pot' has reduced or increased in the past 12 months.

by Guest 09.01.14 21:39

ultimaThule wrote:I hope the two threads can be merged as these latest accounts need to be set against previous years in order to see how much 'the pot' has reduced or increased in the past 12 months.

Which two threads? If you look at the fraudulent Fund forum, there is actually a thread for each separate year of accounts. Therefore best to keep it that way, easier to find and look up rather than wading through pages and pages.

by jeanmonroe 09.01.14 23:51

(The Fund)
covered expenses for witnesses giving evidence in a libel trial against Goncalo Amaral (former coordinator of the Portugues investigation to fine Madeleine)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, wouldn't the 'fund' paying the 'expenses' of rather 'well heeled' witnesses be considered a slap in the face of the rather 'poorer' people, even a group of handicapped children, that donated to the 'fund'?

HOW much was the 'Find Madeleine Fund' depleted by to pay these expenses?

Would the McCann 'witnesses' not have given evidence, or even travelled to Portugal, IF the 'fund' had not paid their 'expenses'?

Did the McCanns, and the 'fund' HAVE to agree to pay 'expenses' for their witnesses to actually appear in court on their behalf?

What a state of affairs it is when you have to pay for your witnesses to appear in a courtroom for you.

How much did the 'search fund for Madeleine' pay for the return air fare from Canada to Portugal, for witness Mrs Hubbard?

With 'friends' like that, who needs 'enemies'?

Friends, who would 'do anything' to get Madeleine back, as long as it dosen't actually cost them anything personally, as long as the 'Find Madeleine Fund' is paying!

by aiyoyo 10.01.14 0:19

Gillyspot wrote:
margaret wrote:
truthfultiger wrote:The fund has debtors... Why would a fund like this have debtors? Am I missing something? Also why are some of the funds listers restricted on the income expenditure page?

No l've been wondering about the creditors, who owes them over £29000? Can't be utilities at that amount.

Creditors are who a company owes. Not who owes a company. - So we can surmise that McCann Fund owed £29k to other companies at the time of the end of year accounts. IMO £29k is not a lot based upon NMA (net monthly account) trading terms. Seems they don't get a lot of credit (or ask for it).

Understandable people won't give them credit even had they asked.
It is too risky as they are not trading co. with constant turnover.
Their Income vs Expenses is like see-saw, and the tipping up side is constantly expenses.
Note legal expenses is not listed so it must be hidden in another account.
Maybe the 29K debt is to law firms.

by **PeterMac** 10.01.14 8:20

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

by Guest 10.01.14 8:36

And the usual omission...

From the website updated 8-1-14:

Fund Objectives
The full objects of the Fund are:

To secure the safe return to her family of Madeleine McCann who was abducted in Praia da Luz, Portugal on Thursday 3rd May 2007;
To procure that Madeleine's abduction is thoroughly investigated and that her abductors, as well as those who played or play any part in assisting them, are identified and brought to justice; and
To provide support, including financial assistance, to Madeleine's family.

If the above objects are fulfilled then the objects of the Foundation shall be to pursue such purposes in similar cases arising in the United Kingdom, Portugal or elsewhere.

No mention of the third aim of the fund "support and financial assistance" in the annual report.

If you want to be really litteral, the money cannot be spend on other good causes until the object of the fund is fulfilled. So only until after the family is supporter financially can the money left (if there is money left) be given to the search And aid of other mising children and their families.

by aiyoyo 10.01.14 11:01

TY, PeterMac.

Plenty of unnecessary misc expenses ?
Part time PR agencies to receive info etc ? when review ongoing and public urged to call Police Hotline.
Scaled down PIs meaning what - still ongoing but on smaller scale ?

No transparency re legal fees but all and sundry misc explained.

by Pershing36 10.01.14 18:29

jeanmonroe wrote:(The Fund)
covered expenses for witnesses giving evidence in a libel trial against Goncalo Amaral (former coordinator of the Portugues investigation to fine Madeleine)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, wouldn't the 'fund' paying the 'expenses' of rather 'well heeled' witnesses be considered a slap in the face of the rather 'poorer' people, even a group of handicapped children, that donated to the 'fund'?

HOW much was the 'Find Madeleine Fund' depleted by to pay these expenses?

Would the McCann 'witnesses' not have given evidence, or even travelled to Portugal, IF the 'fund' had not paid their 'expenses'?

Did the McCanns, and the 'fund' HAVE to agree to pay 'expenses' for their witnesses to actually appear in court on their behalf?

What a state of affairs it is when you have to pay for your witnesses to appear in a courtroom for you.

How much did the 'search fund for Madeleine' pay for the return air fare from Canada to Portugal, for witness Mrs Hubbard?

With 'friends' like that, who needs 'enemies'?

Friends, who would 'do anything' to get Madeleine back, as long as it dosen't actually cost them anything personally, as long as the 'Find Madeleine Fund' is paying!

Be interesting to see exactly what was paid in expenses, to whom and for how much.

Could be loss of earnings, travel, hotels and all sorts. That could add up to a big sum.

How much you can pay and for what surely can only go so far before it is looked at as a bribe.

by aiyoyo 11.01.14 10:01

Be interesting to know whether Tacky Price-Tag-style Donation was approved by Board of Directors ?

by Mirage 11.01.14 10:09

Ref: PDF Accounts. Bottom of page 2

"The Fund has scaled back independent investigations"

----------------------

Why are they still soliciting for donations on their re-vamped website then?

by SchrodingersBody 11.01.14 13:40

Juulcy wrote:And the usual omission...

From the website updated 8-1-14:

Fund Objectives
The full objects of the Fund are:

To secure the safe return to her family of Madeleine McCann who was abducted in Praia da Luz, Portugal on Thursday 3rd May 2007;
To procure that Madeleine's abduction is thoroughly investigated and that her abductors, as well as those who played or play any part in assisting them, are identified and brought to justice; and
To provide support, including financial assistance, to Madeleine's family.

If the above objects are fulfilled then the objects of the Foundation shall be to pursue such purposes in similar cases arising in the United Kingdom, Portugal or elsewhere.

No mention of the third aim of the fund "support and financial assistance" in the annual report.

If you want to be really litteral, the money cannot be spend on other good causes until the object of the fund is fulfilled. So only until after the family is supporter financially can the money left (if there is money left) be given to the search And aid of other mising children and their families.

In a parallel universe the parents were not innocent victims like the McCanns, and were involved in the "abduction". The McParallels, post arrest, are claiming that all the money they spent from the fund prior to their arrest was in fact "helping" the authorities identify them as the abductors, so was spent entirely correctly.

by Guest 11.01.14 13:48

jeanmonroe wrote:(The Fund)
covered expenses for witnesses giving evidence in a libel trial against Goncalo Amaral (former coordinator of the Portugues investigation to fine Madeleine)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, wouldn't the 'fund' paying the 'expenses' of rather 'well heeled' witnesses be considered a slap in the face of the rather 'poorer' people, even a group of handicapped children, that donated to the 'fund'?

HOW much was the 'Find Madeleine Fund' depleted by to pay these expenses?

Would the McCann 'witnesses' not have given evidence, or even travelled to Portugal, IF the 'fund' had not paid their 'expenses'?

Did the McCanns, and the 'fund' HAVE to agree to pay 'expenses' for their witnesses to actually appear in court on their behalf?

What a state of affairs it is when you have to pay for your witnesses to appear in a courtroom for you.

How much did the 'search fund for Madeleine' pay for the return air fare from Canada to Portugal, for witness Mrs Hubbard?

With 'friends' like that, who needs 'enemies'?

Friends, who would 'do anything' to get Madeleine back, as long as it dosen't actually cost them anything personally, as long as the 'Find Madeleine Fund' is paying!

Actually, the Fund Limited ~~buying~~ providing for the witnesses may be a blessing in disguise: IF the Fund really did this, then the Mecs are not in a position to reclaim these witness ~~awards/ freebees~~ from the plaintiffs, as they haven't made any of these payments themselves but the Fund is the paymaster

by aiyoyo 11.01.14 14:25

Portia wrote:

Actually, the Fund Limited ~~buying~~ providing for the witnesses may be a blessing in disguise: IF the Fund really did this, then the Mecs are not in a position to reclaim these witness ~~awards/ freebees~~ from the plaintiffs, as they haven't made any of these payments themselves but the Fund is the paymaster

You lost me there ?

by Smokeandmirrors 11.01.14 14:38

aiyoyo wrote:
Portia wrote:

Actually, the Fund Limited ~~buying~~ providing for the witnesses may be a blessing in disguise: IF the Fund really did this, then the Mecs are not in a position to reclaim these witness ~~awards/ freebees~~ from the plaintiffs, as they haven't made any of these payments themselves but the Fund is the paymaster

You lost me there ?

I think it means that the McCanns can not claim any of the costs relating to witness expenses as they were paid for by the Fund. The Fund is not who is making this legal case by the family.

However, the terms of the fund state that it is there to support the family financially, so the fund would cough up anyway regardless.

by Guest 11.01.14 15:05

Smokeandmirrors wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
Portia wrote:

Actually, the Fund Limited ~~buying~~ providing for the witnesses may be a blessing in disguise: IF the Fund really did this, then the Mecs are not in a position to reclaim these witness ~~awards/ freebees~~ from the plaintiffs, as they haven't made any of these payments themselves but the Fund is the paymaster

You lost me there ?

I think it means that the McCanns can not claim any of the costs relating to witness expenses as they were paid for by the Fund. The Fund is not who is making this legal case by the family.

However, the terms of the fund state that it is there to support the family financially, so the fund would cough up anyway regardless.

by Smokeandmirrors 11.01.14 15:28

Portia wrote:
Smokeandmirrors wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
Portia wrote:

Actually, the Fund Limited ~~buying~~ providing for the witnesses may be a blessing in disguise: IF the Fund really did this, then the Mecs are not in a position to reclaim these witness ~~awards/ freebees~~ from the plaintiffs, as they haven't made any of these payments themselves but the Fund is the paymaster

You lost me there ?

I think it means that the McCanns can not claim any of the costs relating to witness expenses as they were paid for by the Fund. The Fund is not who is making this legal case by the family.

However, the terms of the fund state that it is there to support the family financially, so the fund would cough up anyway regardless.

Well, I think that is the case Portia. Please don't panic, it could be wrong. But I think that is why the Company was set up in this way, so the McCanns can cash in whatever circumstances arise. The weasels.