The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Welcome to 'The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann' forum 🌹

Please log in, or register to view all the forums as some of them are 'members only', then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann.

When you register please do NOT use your email address for a username because everyone will be able to see it!

Analysis of Fund accounts by Enid o'Dowd - Mccannfiles - Page 2 Mm11

Analysis of Fund accounts by Enid o'Dowd - Mccannfiles - Page 2 Regist10
The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Welcome to 'The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann' forum 🌹

Please log in, or register to view all the forums as some of them are 'members only', then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann.

When you register please do NOT use your email address for a username because everyone will be able to see it!

Analysis of Fund accounts by Enid o'Dowd - Mccannfiles - Page 2 Mm11

Analysis of Fund accounts by Enid o'Dowd - Mccannfiles - Page 2 Regist10

Analysis of Fund accounts by Enid o'Dowd - Mccannfiles

Page 2 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Analysis of Fund accounts by Enid o'Dowd - Mccannfiles - Page 2 Empty Re: Analysis of Fund accounts by Enid o'Dowd - Mccannfiles

Post by Liz Eagles 12.01.15 21:12

Knitted wrote:Sorry if someone's already covered this (I haven't scrolled through the thread) but...I've just looked at the Fraud Act 2006, Chapter 35, and here's bits that seem relevant to me...

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

Can anyone (e.g. Tony with your legal skills?) say if there's a case to challenge the fund? My reading of it is that, as has just been said by Aquila, if they don't disclose that Madeleine is considered to be dead by those looking into the case, then they are falling foul of Section 2, (2), (b).


Link to Fraud Act 2006
Please correct your post, I did not say this.
Liz Eagles
Liz Eagles

Posts : 11164
Activity : 13573
Likes received : 2218
Join date : 2011-09-03

Back to top Go down

Analysis of Fund accounts by Enid o'Dowd - Mccannfiles - Page 2 Empty Re: Analysis of Fund accounts by Enid o'Dowd - Mccannfiles

Post by Knitted 12.01.15 21:32

aquila wrote:
Knitted wrote:Sorry if someone's already covered this (I haven't scrolled through the thread) but...I've just looked at the Fraud Act 2006, Chapter 35, and here's bits that seem relevant to me...

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

Can anyone (e.g. Tony with your legal skills?) say if there's a case to challenge the fund? My reading of it is that, as has just been said by Aquila, if they don't disclose that Madeleine is considered to be dead by those looking into the case, then they are falling foul of Section 2, (2), (b).


Link to Fraud Act 2006
Please correct your post, I did not say this.
Sorry... This site is proving to be a minefield of egg-shells for me. I'd like your help in helping me better comprehend others' postings that are made. I honestly do not want to cause offense...


You said (upthread) "Can someone make sense of why the McCanns need a donate button on their website (that would be the £37k website paid for from donations by the public) when the police service of two countries are conducting an investigation for which they (the McCanns) are so encouraged by?"


Apologies.... but why is that any different to my saying:

 "Can anyone (e.g. Tony with your legal skills?) say if there's a case to challenge the fund? My reading of it is that, as has just been said by Aquila, if they don't disclose that Madeleine is considered to be dead by those looking into the case, then they are falling foul of Section 2, (2), (b).



If my reading of it is incorrect (as you say it is, and which I fully accept it may be) then please help me by telling me what is wrong.


May I respectfully, and politely, and in the spirit of a constructive forum, ask that you don't simply ask (demand?) me to correct myself. I honestly read your posting as synonymous with mine. 


I will happily correct it... but please tell em (Freudian Slip for 'me'!) where I've gone wrong. Thanks. big grin


____________________
Justice...  Fought for by the masses. Purchased by the wealthy. Traded by the powerful.
Knitted
Knitted

Posts : 240
Activity : 259
Likes received : 15
Join date : 2015-01-02

Back to top Go down

Analysis of Fund accounts by Enid o'Dowd - Mccannfiles - Page 2 Empty Re: Analysis of Fund accounts by Enid o'Dowd - Mccannfiles

Post by Liz Eagles 12.01.15 21:35

@knitted

I give up.
Liz Eagles
Liz Eagles

Posts : 11164
Activity : 13573
Likes received : 2218
Join date : 2011-09-03

Back to top Go down

Analysis of Fund accounts by Enid o'Dowd - Mccannfiles - Page 2 Empty Re: Analysis of Fund accounts by Enid o'Dowd - Mccannfiles

Post by Knitted 12.01.15 21:41

aquila wrote:@knitted

I give up.
Why? Sorry... I misinterpreted you. Why not take a few seconds to correct me? I've read, re-read, and re-read your original comment and am still not sure what's wrong.

As I said, I am sorry if I have misinterpreted you.

I'm very easy going and am (honestly) happy to take it on the chin when I'm wrong...  But I am, seriously, confused by your last comment.

Am I missing something? Sorry if I am.
Knitted
Knitted

Posts : 240
Activity : 259
Likes received : 15
Join date : 2015-01-02

Back to top Go down

Analysis of Fund accounts by Enid o'Dowd - Mccannfiles - Page 2 Empty Re: Analysis of Fund accounts by Enid o'Dowd - Mccannfiles

Post by Doug D 15.01.15 13:06

Accounts to 31/3/2014 are in but:
 
‘Highlighted documents are not yet available for inspection’
 
which presumably means they are being scanned at the present time and will be up in the next day or so.
avatar
Doug D

Posts : 3719
Activity : 5286
Likes received : 1299
Join date : 2013-12-03

Back to top Go down

Analysis of Fund accounts by Enid o'Dowd - Mccannfiles - Page 2 Empty Re: Analysis of Fund accounts by Enid o'Dowd - Mccannfiles

Post by Enid O'Dowd 15.01.15 15:06

I was in touch with Companies House yesterday and was told they are currently processing documents received on 31 December 31. 

It would appear therefore that the Fund Accounts were filed on the last legal date and could be available later today. 

I'm not going to put my plans for the day on hold though! 

These accounts cover the year from 1 April 2013 to 31 March 2014. It is now January 2015. These accounts, I predict, will tell us nothing of interest.

____________________
Author of Fateful Decisions: there's a fine line between acceptable parenting and neglect.   [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Author of A Review of the background to setting up the limited company Madeleine's Fund: leaving no Stone Unturned and a forensic examination of the company accounts. Available on [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
avatar
Enid O'Dowd
Researcher

Posts : 107
Activity : 132
Likes received : 21
Join date : 2013-11-14

http://www.enidodowd.com

Back to top Go down

Analysis of Fund accounts by Enid o'Dowd - Mccannfiles - Page 2 Empty Re: Analysis of Fund accounts by Enid o'Dowd - Mccannfiles

Post by Doug D 16.01.15 10:14

From a quick first look of the accounts published on the Companies House site:
 
GeneralBook
Income £21k
(T shirts & GQWB £3k
Donation £18k)
 
Income £400k
 
Costs  £23k
(Legal £8k, Hotel, Travel & Subsistence £13k)
Costs £41k
(Awareness £2k,Campaign Management £13k, Search Fees £26k)
Expenses £21k
(Aud/Acc £9k, Prof. Fees £7k, Meetings & Events £3k)
 
 
 
Money in pot at 31/3/14:      £753k (2013 £416k) (of which £578k is in the ‘restricted’ book sales category)
 
Only other bits of note I could see:
Website £224
Interest received £258 (not much for such a large balance)
 
The statement:
 
In light of the review…..by MPS…. And subsequent reopening of the investigation…….the fund has scaled back independent investigative efforts to avoid duplication and to curb unnecessary expenditure. The Directors still feel it is important…… (to) maintain sizeable reserves so that the search for Madeleine can be resumed quickly if/when the need arises.
 
is much the same as they said last year.
 
The only thing that really struck me was the rest of the book money finally surfacing, as this was reported initially iirc to have been an advance of around £1m, yet only half had been seen in the accounts up to now.
 
I must revisit the old accounts though and try and identify the monies ‘donated to the fund’ from the various settlements (inc. T7) received, as to me it doesn't 'feel right', but it may just be that public donations have never been as high as seemingly purported and have 'looked good', having been inflated by the various settlement monies and declared donations.
 
I am sure Enid will let us have a full breakdown and comparison in the next day or so.
avatar
Doug D

Posts : 3719
Activity : 5286
Likes received : 1299
Join date : 2013-12-03

Back to top Go down

Analysis of Fund accounts by Enid o'Dowd - Mccannfiles - Page 2 Empty Re: Analysis of Fund accounts by Enid o'Dowd - Mccannfiles

Post by tiny 16.01.15 15:46

shout shout Enid O'Dowd, where are you big grin
tiny
tiny

Posts : 2274
Activity : 2311
Likes received : 4
Join date : 2010-02-03

Back to top Go down

Analysis of Fund accounts by Enid o'Dowd - Mccannfiles - Page 2 Empty Re: Analysis of Fund accounts by Enid o'Dowd - Mccannfiles

Post by Enid O'Dowd 16.01.15 17:37

tiny wrote:shout shout Enid O'Dowd, where are you big grin
I have the accounts and will put a report on the mccannfiles as usual, but I'm rather busy at the moment.

One interesting thing I have noted is that the accounts contain a page giving an analysis of expenditure. This is not a statutory requirement for private limited companies. The first accounts (to march 2008) did contain this analysis but the figures gave rise to many unfavourable comments. Subsequent accounts did not contain any detail of expenditure.

____________________
Author of Fateful Decisions: there's a fine line between acceptable parenting and neglect.   [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Author of A Review of the background to setting up the limited company Madeleine's Fund: leaving no Stone Unturned and a forensic examination of the company accounts. Available on [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
avatar
Enid O'Dowd
Researcher

Posts : 107
Activity : 132
Likes received : 21
Join date : 2013-11-14

http://www.enidodowd.com

Back to top Go down

Analysis of Fund accounts by Enid o'Dowd - Mccannfiles - Page 2 Empty Re: Analysis of Fund accounts by Enid o'Dowd - Mccannfiles

Post by tiny 16.01.15 17:49

Enid O'Dowd wrote:
tiny wrote:shout shout Enid O'Dowd, where are you big grin
I have the accounts and will put a report on the mccannfiles as usual, but I'm rather busy at the moment.

One interesting thing I have noted is that the accounts contain a page giving an analysis of expenditure. This is not a statutory requirement for private limited companies. The first accounts (to march 2008) did contain this analysis but the figures gave rise to many unfavourable comments. Subsequent accounts did not contain any detail of expenditure.
thumbsup thank you
tiny
tiny

Posts : 2274
Activity : 2311
Likes received : 4
Join date : 2010-02-03

Back to top Go down

Analysis of Fund accounts by Enid o'Dowd - Mccannfiles - Page 2 Empty Analysis of 2014 Accounts

Post by Doug D 29.01.15 19:48

Enid O’Dowd has posted up her analysis of the latest accounts on McCannfiles at:
 
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
 
Couple of things from her analysis I would pass comment on:
 
She says that of other income ‘none of which came via the website’
 
Although the accounts show an entry ‘Donation income via website’ against which there is no value for this year, last year shows a negative figure of £15796, although there is no mention of how this negative figure occurred, in either this years or the 2013 accounts and this figure did not even appear in the 2013 accounts.
There is a website cost of £5700 showing for 2013, so whether the website donations negative figure makes up the balance of the website cost is anyone’s guess.
I cannot believe that nobody was daft enough to donate something by the button over a whole year, although that is what the accounts suggest and am at loss to even surmise quite why this category has been added, rather than just leaving a net ‘donation income’ figure as shown in last years accounts.
 
Enid also queries the £400k ‘donation’ from Kate for book income:
 
‘That statement doesn't adequately explain the donation to me.  Surely it makes more sense for Dr McCann to put her surplus funds in the best interest bearing account she can find, and donate to the Fund if the need arises?’
 
I don’t think KM has any alternative other than to transfer ‘all royalties earned from sales of this book’ in accordance with the statement on the book flyer:
 
‘It is for this reason that all royalties earned from sales of this book will be donated to Madeleine’s Fund.’
 
although whether she can get away with hanging on to the serialization rights etc is a matter for conjecture. It may also be beneficial to transfer any such personal earnings she can get away with, across to the Limited Company, as the costs of the original book case (which were awarded against them, but deferred) and a possible costs award for the current case, would be against them personally and the Limited Company would therefore be protected from any claim, as it is not the company that has taken Amaral to court.
 
One of the original objects of the company was:
 
‘To provide support, including financial assistance, to Madeleine’s family’
 
and although this dropped off the objects as shown in the accounts after 2011, I am not sure if this has actually been removed from the company’s ‘Mem & Arts’ or just 'forgotten about' in the accounts ‘as it doesn’t look very good’.
 
Either way, if it has been formally removed, it can probably just as easily be put back.
 
There is an anomaly with the ‘Auditors fees’ for both 2014 and 2013, with two different figures quoted for each year £5900 or £8280 and £6300 or £9780, but as with most things McCann, discrepancies don’t generally matter, so why should the Limited Company accounts be any different?
 
What exactly do HaysMacintyre do to earn their auditors fees if basic accounting discrepancies are not identified?
 
Enid also includes a breakdown of income/expenditure over the full course of the fund, adding that it is not possible to analyse in detail the income, as figures were only broken down in years 1 and 7, but this is something I keep meaning to look at to try and split off the various awards and donations made that have been identified in the press over the years.
 
Thank you Enid.
avatar
Doug D

Posts : 3719
Activity : 5286
Likes received : 1299
Join date : 2013-12-03

Back to top Go down

Analysis of Fund accounts by Enid o'Dowd - Mccannfiles - Page 2 Empty Re: Analysis of Fund accounts by Enid o'Dowd - Mccannfiles

Post by aiyoyo 30.01.15 12:26

Doug D wrote:
 
 
although whether she can get away with hanging on to the serialization rights etc is a matter for conjecture. It may also be beneficial to transfer any such personal earnings she can get away with, across to the Limited Company, as the costs of the original book case (which were awarded against them, but deferred) and a possible costs award for the current case, would be against them personally and the Limited Company would therefore be protected from any claim, as it is not the company that has taken Amaral to court.

Interesting observation ! 
If Ltd Co. is protected from any claim being not the named litigator in the Lawsuit   then equally fund from company cannot be used to pay legal fees and legal costs as the liability of the lawsuit is the responsibility of the named individual litigators.

 It will be interesting to see if "Fund" will be used to pay the legal bills or will the Mcs foot it out of their own pockets.  If the latter, it will burn a massive hole in their pockets. Somehow I can't see that happening.

 
One of the original objects of the company was:
 
‘To provide support, including financial assistance, to Madeleine’s family’
 
and although this dropped off the objects as shown in the accounts after 2011, I am not sure if this has actually been removed from the company’s ‘Mem & Arts’ or just 'forgotten about' in the accounts ‘as it doesn’t look very good’.
 
Either way, if it has been formally removed, it can probably just as easily be put back.

If the objects of the company - allowing fund for use to financially support M's family - is removed from the Mem & Arts then company's money cannot be used to pay their personal legal bills, unless the objects is reinstated in the Mem & Art.

I tend to believe said "objects" is not reflected in the Audited Accounts as a reactive action to the negative public sentiments rather than removed from the Mem & Arts. Unless one gets to see the Mem&Arts no one is any wiser.  But personally I can't see them having the objects removed from the Mem & Arts when it's not to their advantage to do that.  They have hugh legal bills to meet and unless they've secret supporter who will borne the costs the money has to come from somewhere, and it ain't going to be from their pockets imv.
 
aiyoyo
aiyoyo

Posts : 9610
Activity : 10084
Likes received : 326
Join date : 2009-11-28

Back to top Go down

Analysis of Fund accounts by Enid o'Dowd - Mccannfiles - Page 2 Empty Re: Analysis of Fund accounts by Enid o'Dowd - Mccannfiles

Post by Miraflores 30.01.15 14:13

Interesting observation !
If Ltd Co. is protected from any claim being not the named litigator in the Lawsuit   then equally fund from company cannot be used to pay legal fees and legal costs as the liability of the lawsuit is the responsibility of the named individual litigators.

Would this explain why Kate has transferred a large tranche of money into the Fund?
Miraflores
Miraflores

Posts : 845
Activity : 856
Likes received : 4
Join date : 2011-06-20

Back to top Go down

Analysis of Fund accounts by Enid o'Dowd - Mccannfiles - Page 2 Empty Re: Analysis of Fund accounts by Enid o'Dowd - Mccannfiles

Post by Liz Eagles 30.01.15 14:20

Miraflores wrote:
Interesting observation !
If Ltd Co. is protected from any claim being not the named litigator in the Lawsuit   then equally fund from company cannot be used to pay legal fees and legal costs as the liability of the lawsuit is the responsibility of the named individual litigators.

Would this explain why Kate has transferred a large tranche of money into the Fund?
Where is the interest on this money?
Liz Eagles
Liz Eagles

Posts : 11164
Activity : 13573
Likes received : 2218
Join date : 2011-09-03

Back to top Go down

Analysis of Fund accounts by Enid o'Dowd - Mccannfiles - Page 2 Empty Re: Analysis of Fund accounts by Enid o'Dowd - Mccannfiles

Post by Rogue-a-Tory 30.01.15 14:40

Miraflores wrote:
Interesting observation !
If Ltd Co. is protected from any claim being not the named litigator in the Lawsuit   then equally fund from company cannot be used to pay legal fees and legal costs as the liability of the lawsuit is the responsibility of the named individual litigators.

Would this explain why Kate has transferred a large tranche of money into the Fund?
Disagree, the Limited company can pay for whatever it likes as long as the relevant transaction is covered by the memorandum of association, articles & objectives. That would include paying the legal costs of another body, which in this case under the guise of supporting the family, would appear possible should the original MOA remain intact.

What would be interesting would be a P11D, benefits in kind argument which should be investigated by HMRC on all costs reimbursed to Mr & Mrs. In other words should the reimbursement not be a genuine business expense then Mr & Mrs must pay tax on it at the prevailing rate.

Anybody ringing the HMRC bell? Would get them investigated, any investigation is a result with potential serious financial consequences.
Rogue-a-Tory
Rogue-a-Tory

Posts : 647
Activity : 1115
Likes received : 454
Join date : 2014-09-10

Back to top Go down

Analysis of Fund accounts by Enid o'Dowd - Mccannfiles - Page 2 Empty Tax and accounts

Post by Letterwriter 31.01.15 19:06

- Agree that HMRC might be interested in tax and Benefits in Kind type issues.  Well, they would if it was anyone else's company!

- Companies House could also be informed that accounts have been filed in which comparative figures don't match.  Mind, all sorts of rubbish is filed with Companies House - I'm not sure when they last checked any accounts or looked into any complaint about filed accounts.

- I'd be interested to see how the contracts etc were structured re the book sales and how they were declared on the tax returns.
Letterwriter
Letterwriter

Posts : 69
Activity : 87
Likes received : 10
Join date : 2011-04-11

Back to top Go down

Analysis of Fund accounts by Enid o'Dowd - Mccannfiles - Page 2 Empty Fund accounts 2014-15

Post by Guest 29.12.15 18:14

Fund accounts up to 31st March 2015 due to be filed at Companies House by 31st December.
Anonymous
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Analysis of Fund accounts by Enid o'Dowd - Mccannfiles - Page 2 Empty Fund accounts 2014-15

Post by Guest 07.01.16 18:21

Looks as if latest accounts have been submitted to Companies House.
Anonymous
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Analysis of Fund accounts by Enid o'Dowd - Mccannfiles - Page 2 Empty March 2015

Post by Doug D 08.01.16 13:11

Even less this time and they can’t even spell ‘abbreviated’ right on the cover!
 
Transparent? Yea, right.
 
Not even the minimal income/expenditure accounts we have seen in the past, so all we get is:
 
No debtors                             (2014 £Nil)
Cash at bank  £763,772       (2014 £765,363)
Creditors        £ 17,620         (£12,307)
 
Made up of:
Unrestricted Funds   £185,507       (£174,966)
Restricted Funds       £560,152       (£578,090)
 
And that’s it and all perfectly legal!
 
To qualify as small a company in its first financial year needs to meet at least two out of three of the following conditions:
            turnover not more than £6.5m
            balance sheet total not more than £3.26m
            number of employees not more than 50.
In respect of subsequent years the company will only incur a change in its status, eg from medium to small or from small to medium, if it respectively meets or fails two out of the three above conditions for both the current and the preceding financial year.
The above is commonly referred to as the two-year rule and its tenet has remained unchanged from the provisions of the 1985 Act.
 
444 Filing obligations of companies subject to small companies regime
 
(1)
The directors of a company subject to the small companies regime—
(a)
 must deliver to the registrar for each financial year a copy of a balance sheet drawn up as at the last day of that year, and
(b)
may also deliver to the registrar—
(i)
a copy of the company's profit and loss account for that year, and
(ii)
a copy of the directors' report for that year.
 
………………………………………….
 
So technically I believe they could have had income of up to £6.5m and spent it all, leaving the cash pot virtually the same as last year and we would be none the wiser.
 
I await Enid’s take on this with interest.
avatar
Doug D

Posts : 3719
Activity : 5286
Likes received : 1299
Join date : 2013-12-03

Back to top Go down

Analysis of Fund accounts by Enid o'Dowd - Mccannfiles - Page 2 Empty Fund Accounts year ending 31 March 2015

Post by Enid O'Dowd 08.01.16 17:53

The Fund – Accounts for the year ended 31 March 2015
The accounts were approved on 18 December 2015 and signed by director Michael Linnett (retired accountant) on behalf of the Board. The accounts were then passed to the auditors who filed them at Companies House on 23 December 2015; the accounts became available to the public on 8 January. As in previous years, the accounts were filed close to the legal deadline.


This time the company has availed of a legal exemption for small companies enabling it to provide considerably less information than before.


The accounts filed consist of 4 pages:


1 .A cover page with an error spelling ‘abbreviated accounts’ as ‘abbreivated accounts’
2. Auditors’ Report
3. Balance Sheet
4. Notes to the Balance Sheet


From these accounts I have no idea what the actual income and expenditure was in the year. I don’t even know what the audit fee was or how many board meetings were held.


Due to the lack of information in these accounts I cannot update my spreadsheet of income and expenditure over the years since the company was incorporated in 2007. 


At the end of the year there was £763,772 in the bank, just under £2,000 less than at 31 March 2014. Whether this indicates a lack of financial activity in the year I have no way of knowing.


What has money been spent on during this year?


According the official website there is:


‘The 24-hour ‘hotline’ for people to call with information is still functioning on 0845 838 4699 for people who would prefer to contact us directly’


And there is a team in place comprising ‘a campaign coordinator and translators/interpreters, the team has several individuals with invaluable marketing, advertising and I.T. skills who help with the general campaign to find Madeleine.’

On another page of the official website it states ‘An experienced Fund Administrator has been appointed to ensure the highest standards of transparency and accountability.’

'7) What is the money being spent on?
The majority of the fund money has been and continues to be spent on investigative work to help find Madeleine. Additionally money continues to be spent on the wider 'Awareness Campaign' – reminding people that Madeleine is still missing and to remain vigilant. None of the directors have taken any money from the fund as remuneration.
Anyone who wishes further information with regards to the financial details of Madeleine's Fund and its professional advisors, please refer to the accounts filed at Companies House. Crown Way Maindy Cardiff CF14 3UZ.’

Wouldn’t it be interesting to know how much money was spent in this year as claimed above?


What income came in during the year?

I haven’t a clue!

The audited accounts have never been placed on the website. It would cost nothing to do this. The public is referred to Companies House!
Dr Kate McCann stated in her book madeleine published in 2011 that:

‘from the outset everyone agreed that, despite the costs involved, it (the Fund) must be run to the highest standards of transparency.’

In my opinion the Fund never met ‘the highest standards of transparency.’

Has the Board now decided that the Fund should be as untransparent as it is legally possible to be? It would appear so.

____________________
Author of Fateful Decisions: there's a fine line between acceptable parenting and neglect.   [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Author of A Review of the background to setting up the limited company Madeleine's Fund: leaving no Stone Unturned and a forensic examination of the company accounts. Available on [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
avatar
Enid O'Dowd
Researcher

Posts : 107
Activity : 132
Likes received : 21
Join date : 2013-11-14

http://www.enidodowd.com

Back to top Go down

Analysis of Fund accounts by Enid o'Dowd - Mccannfiles - Page 2 Empty Re: Analysis of Fund accounts by Enid o'Dowd - Mccannfiles

Post by Guest 08.01.16 20:30

Enid O'Dowd wrote:The Fund – Accounts for the year ended 31 March 2015
The accounts were approved on 18 December 2015 and signed by director Michael Linnett (retired accountant) on behalf of the Board. The accounts were then passed to the auditors who filed them at Companies House on 23 December 2015; the accounts became available to the public on 8 January. As in previous years, the accounts were filed close to the legal deadline.


This time the company has availed of a legal exemption for small companies enabling it to provide considerably less information than before.


The accounts filed consist of 4 pages:


1 .A cover page with an error spelling ‘abbreviated accounts’ as ‘abbreivated accounts’
2. Auditors’ Report
3. Balance Sheet
4. Notes to the Balance Sheet


From these accounts I have no idea what the actual income and expenditure was in the year. I don’t even know what the audit fee was or how many board meetings were held.


Due to the lack of information in these accounts I cannot update my spreadsheet of income and expenditure over the years since the company was incorporated in 2007. 


At the end of the year there was £763,772 in the bank, just under £2,000 less than at 31 March 2014. Whether this indicates a lack of financial activity in the year I have no way of knowing.


What has money been spent on during this year?


According the official website there is:


‘The 24-hour ‘hotline’ for people to call with information is still functioning on 0845 838 4699 for people who would prefer to contact us directly’


And there is a team in place comprising ‘a campaign coordinator and translators/interpreters, the team has several individuals with invaluable marketing, advertising and I.T. skills who help with the general campaign to find Madeleine.’

On another page of the official website it states ‘An experienced Fund Administrator has been appointed to ensure the highest standards of transparency and accountability.’

'7) What is the money being spent on?
The majority of the fund money has been and continues to be spent on investigative work to help find Madeleine. Additionally money continues to be spent on the wider 'Awareness Campaign' – reminding people that Madeleine is still missing and to remain vigilant. None of the directors have taken any money from the fund as remuneration.
Anyone who wishes further information with regards to the financial details of Madeleine's Fund and its professional advisors, please refer to the accounts filed at Companies House. Crown Way Maindy Cardiff CF14 3UZ.’

Wouldn’t it be interesting to know how much money was spent in this year as claimed above?


What income came in during the year?

I haven’t a clue!

The audited accounts have never been placed on the website. It would cost nothing to do this. The public is referred to Companies House!
Dr Kate McCann stated in her book madeleine published in 2011 that:

‘from the outset everyone agreed that, despite the costs involved, it (the Fund) must be run to the highest standards of transparency.’

In my opinion the Fund never met ‘the highest standards of transparency.’

Has the Board now decided that the Fund should be as untransparent as it is legally possible to be? It would appear so.
That was quick - thank you!  Companies House must be making more profit by this than the 'official fund' - I doubt if the financial status of any other small time company has attracted so much attention.

Maybe this is just a veiled attempt to cover total inertia, they haven't the face to admit that they have reached a dead-end.   It seems Operation Grange is to be discontinued in the near future, there must be a limit to the length of time this isolated case can continue to make the headlines - with or without a spin-doctor.  I would be very surprised to learn that people are still donating to this Fund, seemingly they lost the support of all those wealthy benefactors they attracted in the early days so what's left?  A vacuum that will only result in extreme embarrassment if the McCanns and the Fund administrators reveal that they can no longer maintain the facade of previous years.

They've made their public announcement via the UK press about continuation of 'the search' once Operation Grange is closed, they have this floating  sum of x £k to finance their own private search/investigation so game over.  I have a gut feeling that the McCanns, in the very near future, will quietly disappear off the stage in the hope that the pesky interfering public will also disappear.  I really can't see any other way forward for them.  They might get the odd mention on anniversary dates by one of their dyed in the wool appendages but other than that, I believe the general public are thoroughly sick of the name McCann - they monitor internet activity, they must now realise where they stand in regard to public opinion.
Anonymous
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Analysis of Fund accounts by Enid o'Dowd - Mccannfiles - Page 2 Empty Re: Analysis of Fund accounts by Enid o'Dowd - Mccannfiles

Post by Doug D 09.01.16 7:38

I wonder whether the stories of them spending the £750k ‘of their own money’ (?) continuing the search is pre-empting the creaming off of the remaining funds from the account?
 
Pinky story around the time of next years (might have to be the year after) accounts maybe:
 
‘The last £750k? It all went on the search, so we have closed the fund down now” or something to that effect?
 
I’m sure Tracey K. would oblige. I could even write it for her to save her the trouble.
   
With accounts like these they can do what the hell they like.
avatar
Doug D

Posts : 3719
Activity : 5286
Likes received : 1299
Join date : 2013-12-03

Back to top Go down

Analysis of Fund accounts by Enid o'Dowd - Mccannfiles - Page 2 Empty Re: Analysis of Fund accounts by Enid o'Dowd - Mccannfiles

Post by worriedmum 09.01.16 14:39

DougD
''I’m sure Tracey K. would oblige. I could even write it for her to save her the trouble.''

Mrs lol rotfl
worriedmum
worriedmum

Posts : 2062
Activity : 2819
Likes received : 583
Join date : 2012-01-17

Back to top Go down

Analysis of Fund accounts by Enid o'Dowd - Mccannfiles - Page 2 Empty Re: Analysis of Fund accounts by Enid o'Dowd - Mccannfiles

Post by Enid O'Dowd 09.01.16 19:09

Madeleine's Fund
Audited accounts from commencement 
Total31.3.201531.3.201431.3.201331.3.201231.3.201131.3.201031.3.200931.3.2008
 
Income
4,233,899
?
421,264
70,250
856,393
177,534
233,099
629,181
1,846,178
Interest receivable
56,213
?
258
323
149
101
373
21,585
33,424
4,290,112
?
421,522
70,573
856,542
177,635
233,472
650,766
1,879,602
 
Merchandise/Campaign Costs
3,212,141
?
63,638
115,109
476,813
487,193
421,236
974,786
673,366
Admin. Expenses
299,234
?
21,005
23,910
24,909
26,930
29,868
30,865
141,747
3,511,375
?
84,643
139,019
501,722
514,123
451,104
1,005,651
815,113
 
Oper. Surplus/Deficit
778,737
?
336,879
-68,446
354,820
-336,488
-217,632
-354,885
1,064,489
 
Taxation
-25,681
?
0
9,756
-5,128
-8,371
-2,598
-6,878
-12,462
 
Surplus/deficit for  year
753,056
?
336,879
-58,690
349,692
-344,859
-220,230
-361,763
1,052,027
   
Audit
50,085
?
5,900
6,300
6,300
6,300
6,169
5,750
13,366
Balance Sheets
Cash at bank
763,772
765,363
441,169
528,267
173,321
516,968
719,723
572,344
Debtors
0
0
4,523
1,778
4,760
3,718
19,795
585,369
Creditors
17,620
12,307
29,515
55,178
52,906
50,652
49,254
105,686
746,152
753,056
416,177
474,867
125,175
470,034
690,264
1,052,027
Unrestricted Funds
185,507
174,966
197,240
158,953
0
0
0
0
Restricted Funds
560,645
578,090
218,937
315,914
0
0
0
0
Accumulated Reserves 
470,034
690,264
1,052,027
0
Income and Expenditure Account
-344,859
-220,230
-361,763
1,052,027
746,152
753,056
416,177
474,867
125,175
470,034
690,264
1,052,027
 
Note 2Note 1
Note 1: The debtors figure includes £563,152 for donations committed but not received at 31.3.2008
Note 2:  There was a change of accounting policy in 2012; money available was divided as restricted and unrestricted funds
 
I have updated my existing spreadsheet so that at least the balance sheets for each year can be compared.


DougD posted earlier the requirements to qualify as a small company which means you can file very limited information at Companies House. From the spreadsheet it appears that the Fund would have qualified for small company status from incorporation and could therefore have availed of the limited filing requirements. Why has the Fund only availed of this now?


Extract from the website of haysmcintyre auditors to the Fund:


'We’re proud to have been voted in the top three firms for the last eight years for 'overall service' and 'charity expertise' in theCharity Finance Audit Survey and in 2014 we were voted winner for 'charity expertise'.

We are active members of the CFG (Charity Finance Group), ISBA (Independent Schools Bursars' Association), AGBIS (Association of Governing Bodies of Independent Schools) and CIAN (Charities Internal Audit Network) and our team regularly speak at conferences, run events and training seminars and compile thought leadership pieces and benchmarking reports. We are also listed as one of the leading advisers to the Top 3,000 charities in the UK. '


I would love to know what the auditors, who obviously have great experience in the charity and non for profit sector, said when the board of the Fund requested that they file the minimum information required by law?  Did they advise that as a 'not for profit' organisation looking for donations from the public the Fund should be open and transparent and file more detailed accounts as this would surely benefit the company?

____________________
Author of Fateful Decisions: there's a fine line between acceptable parenting and neglect.   [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Author of A Review of the background to setting up the limited company Madeleine's Fund: leaving no Stone Unturned and a forensic examination of the company accounts. Available on [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
avatar
Enid O'Dowd
Researcher

Posts : 107
Activity : 132
Likes received : 21
Join date : 2013-11-14

http://www.enidodowd.com

Back to top Go down

Analysis of Fund accounts by Enid o'Dowd - Mccannfiles - Page 2 Empty Re: Analysis of Fund accounts by Enid o'Dowd - Mccannfiles

Post by Guest 09.01.16 23:03

Enid O'Dowd wrote:
Madeleine's Fund
Audited accounts from commencement 
Total31.3.201531.3.201431.3.201331.3.201231.3.201131.3.201031.3.200931.3.2008
 
Income
4,233,899
?
421,264
70,250
856,393
177,534
233,099
629,181
1,846,178
Interest receivable
56,213
?
258
323
149
101
373
21,585
33,424
4,290,112
?
421,522
70,573
856,542
177,635
233,472
650,766
1,879,602
 
Merchandise/Campaign Costs
3,212,141
?
63,638
115,109
476,813
487,193
421,236
974,786
673,366
Admin. Expenses
299,234
?
21,005
23,910
24,909
26,930
29,868
30,865
141,747
3,511,375
?
84,643
139,019
501,722
514,123
451,104
1,005,651
815,113
 
Oper. Surplus/Deficit
778,737
?
336,879
-68,446
354,820
-336,488
-217,632
-354,885
1,064,489
 
Taxation
-25,681
?
0
9,756
-5,128
-8,371
-2,598
-6,878
-12,462
 
Surplus/deficit for  year
753,056
?
336,879
-58,690
349,692
-344,859
-220,230
-361,763
1,052,027
   
Audit
50,085
?
5,900
6,300
6,300
6,300
6,169
5,750
13,366
Balance Sheets
Cash at bank
763,772
765,363
441,169
528,267
173,321
516,968
719,723
572,344
Debtors
0
0
4,523
1,778
4,760
3,718
19,795
585,369
Creditors
17,620
12,307
29,515
55,178
52,906
50,652
49,254
105,686
746,152
753,056
416,177
474,867
125,175
470,034
690,264
1,052,027
Unrestricted Funds
185,507
174,966
197,240
158,953
0
0
0
0
Restricted Funds
560,645
578,090
218,937
315,914
0
0
0
0
Accumulated Reserves 
470,034
690,264
1,052,027
0
Income and Expenditure Account
-344,859
-220,230
-361,763
1,052,027
746,152
753,056
416,177
474,867
125,175
470,034
690,264
1,052,027
 
Note 2Note 1
Note 1: The debtors figure includes £563,152 for donations committed but not received at 31.3.2008
Note 2:  There was a change of accounting policy in 2012; money available was divided as restricted and unrestricted funds
 
I have updated my existing spreadsheet so that at least the balance sheets for each year can be compared.


DougD posted earlier the requirements to qualify as a small company which means you can file very limited information at Companies House. From the spreadsheet it appears that the Fund would have qualified for small company status from incorporation and could therefore have availed of the limited filing requirements. Why has the Fund only availed of this now?


Extract from the website of haysmcintyre auditors to the Fund:


'We’re proud to have been voted in the top three firms for the last eight years for 'overall service' and 'charity expertise' in theCharity Finance Audit Survey and in 2014 we were voted winner for 'charity expertise'.

We are active members of the CFG (Charity Finance Group), ISBA (Independent Schools Bursars' Association), AGBIS (Association of Governing Bodies of Independent Schools) and CIAN (Charities Internal Audit Network) and our team regularly speak at conferences, run events and training seminars and compile thought leadership pieces and benchmarking reports. We are also listed as one of the leading advisers to the Top 3,000 charities in the UK. '


I would love to know what the auditors, who obviously have great experience in the charity and non for profit sector, said when the board of the Fund requested that they file the minimum information required by law?  Did they advise that as a 'not for profit' organisation looking for donations from the public the Fund should be open and transparent and file more detailed accounts as this would surely benefit the company?
Thank you for taking the trouble to summarize.  It reads like a very encouraging prologue year 2007 and an abysmal epilogue year 2015, with the intervening years jogging along on an even keel (excluding year ending 31.3.2013 which appears to have have been an all round annus horribilis for some reason - Operation Grange perhaps?).

Bearing in mind the date for filing accounts in any one financial year is the end of December, roughly how long before this would the auditors prepare an audit - November say?  The reason I ask is because the year ending 31.3.2008  identifies a whopping £673,366 on merchandise/campaign costs which to me,  being generous, for a notional period of approximately seven months (May - November) appears somewhat excessive considering the PJ investigation was active until the summer of 2008.  If I remember rightly, Kate McCann said at some stage (the book 'madeleine' I think) that they didn't do very much in the way of a private search (?) until after they returned to the UK having been designated arguidos in September 2007.

IMO they can't (or rather shouldn't) try to justify the European tour as part of their campaign because it was essentially a publicity stunt so was no advantage to their missing daughter, I'm not even sure that was financed by the Fund - seems it was a UK government initiative with the help of a few of their wealthy benefactors.
 
I'm also interested to learn why the McCanns, or any of their advisors, didn't pursue charity status.  This route would have given the Fund so many advantages over and above a limited company - except the need for greater transparency?  Think I've just answered my own question..
Anonymous
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Analysis of Fund accounts by Enid o'Dowd - Mccannfiles - Page 2 Empty Re: Analysis of Fund accounts by Enid o'Dowd - Mccannfiles

Post by Enid O'Dowd 10.01.16 0:08

Verdi, to address the issues you raise:
 
Auditors cannot audit the accounts until after the end of the accounting period, which in the case of the Fund is March 31. Any company that wanted to be open and transparent would have its accounts audited as soon as possible after the year end and then filed promptly in Companies House.
 
The Fund has always filed very close to the latest legal date which is nine months after the accounting year end.
 
The merchandising costs to which you refer relate to the period from 15 May 2007 (date company incorporated) to 31 March 2008 and not to May 2007 to November 2007.
 

Regarding charity status, the official line is that the company did not meet the criteria for charity status as it was only concerned with one child rather than with missing children in general.  In my first report into the Fund published on [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] I described how I had obtained documents under the FOI Act  from the Charity Commission which led me to conclude that charity status was not a priority for the McCanns, and that some limited tweaking of the company documentation submitted to the Charity Commission would have resulted in charity status being granted. As you say Verdi, charity status involves a legal obligation for transparency, which is not something evidenced in the filed accounts despite the commitment given in the book madeleine.

____________________
Author of Fateful Decisions: there's a fine line between acceptable parenting and neglect.   [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Author of A Review of the background to setting up the limited company Madeleine's Fund: leaving no Stone Unturned and a forensic examination of the company accounts. Available on [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
avatar
Enid O'Dowd
Researcher

Posts : 107
Activity : 132
Likes received : 21
Join date : 2013-11-14

http://www.enidodowd.com

Back to top Go down

Analysis of Fund accounts by Enid o'Dowd - Mccannfiles - Page 2 Empty Re: Analysis of Fund accounts by Enid o'Dowd - Mccannfiles

Post by Guest 10.01.16 0:44

Enid O'Dowd wrote:Verdi, to address the issues you raise:
 
Auditors cannot audit the accounts until after the end of the accounting period, which in the case of the Fund is March 31. Any company that wanted to be open and transparent would have its accounts audited as soon as possible after the year end and then filed promptly in Companies House.
 
The Fund has always filed very close to the latest legal date which is nine months after the accounting year end.
 
The merchandising costs to which you refer relate to the period from 15 May 2007 (date company incorporated) to 31 March 2008 and not to May 2007 to November 2007.
 

Regarding charity status, the official line is that the company did not meet the criteria for charity status as it was only concerned with one child rather than with missing children in general.  In my first report into the Fund published on [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] I described how I had obtained documents under the FOI Act  from the Charity Commission which led me to conclude that charity status was not a priority for the McCanns, and that some limited tweaking of the company documentation submitted to the Charity Commission would have resulted in charity status being granted. As you say Verdi, charity status involves a legal obligation for transparency, which is not something evidenced in the filed accounts despite the commitment given in the book madeleine.
Thanks for the swift reply.  Clearly I'm confused, it's late so I'll read your first report again in due course, hopefully when more alert.
Anonymous
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Analysis of Fund accounts by Enid o'Dowd - Mccannfiles - Page 2 Empty Re: Analysis of Fund accounts by Enid o'Dowd - Mccannfiles

Post by Doug D 10.01.16 10:31

Lazz’s take on the accounts:
 
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
 
[size=35]Now You See It, Now You..[/size]
 
The Find Madeleine Fund - A Kinda Magic?
 
Finding missing Madeleine McCann - is one of the objectives of the above fund, which is run by her parents and their buddies, NO, not their holiday buddies, the Tapas 9 Team - that OTHER lot of buddies, who together with Kate McCann and Gerry McCann, make up the  - Transparency 6 Team!
 
(Hell, McCanns have/have had loads of teams.  
 
  Teams of dodgy private detectives.
  Teams of lawyers in UK
  Team of lawyers in Portugal
  Team of accountants
  Teams of press agency personnel.
  Team Clarence Mitchell, one of a number of spokespersons they have had on board their TEAM since Madeleine vanished.
  Team of holiday buddies
  Team of directors on Find Madeleine Fund
  Team of buddies at Murdoch's Sky - old Brunty to name but one. 
  Team of columnists who they can rely on to print untruths in press re missing Madeleine.
  Team of silly sofa queens who fail Madeleine, by never posing her parents a pertinent question.
  Team for Website (team Kate?)
  Team Gamble
  Team Translators/Interpreters
  Team campaign Management
  Teams who monitor the internet
  Team, Team. 
 
Yip all of the above and more, make up the MONSTER OF A MACHINE that is Team Team (McCann)
 
And of course there is the Metropolitan Police Team, The Portuguese Police Team - and no one knows for sure if these two teams are playing against one another or as one team.
 
Today, the spotlight is on the Find Madeleine Transparency 6 Team, as they are responsible for the regulation of the Fund, and it seems they have aspirations too. 
 
Despite the Madeleine Fund not being a registered charity they do, they tell us, ASPIRE to follow best practices and processes used by charities. 
 
Is that like being a pretendy charity?
 
If they are not registered as a charity, then they ARE NOT A CHARITY. END OFF!  
 
So why in hell do they use such terminology, that they have ASPIRATIONS, as in ambitions, hopes, goals to operate their Fund following the best practices and processes of a charity?
 
Why mention 'charity' at all if their Fund is not one?
 
Surely to simply use best business practices, and accounting processes, and to state such, would be sufficient, not need to mention 'charity!'
 
Whether their aspirations are achieved is extremely difficult for the public to tell.
 
Difficult to tell as the Transparency 6 Team... well, they hide their light under a bushel, or to put it another way, they don't live up to their name, as they hide their aspirations and achievements behind a legal exemption, which allows them to tell the public pretty much, Sweet Fanny Adams, about their achievements regarding the income and expenditure of Madeleine's money!
 
As the Year End March 2015 accounts became available at the end of December 2015, quelle surprise, who would have thought that they could achieve what they have -  they managed this year to send, Sweet FA into the red!
 
Yip, 'minus Sweet Fanny Adams' is all that Team McCann feel the good people who donated to that Find Madeleine Fund are worthy of.
 
In a recent blog I did - 'Only £couple thousand'  (above) I made following comment:
 
'It would serve the McCanns well to produce a full and detailed set of accounts for public consumption.   When you ask the public for money, it is only right morally so, to act with honesty, integrity and transparency, to produce full and detailed accounts and not produce only that which one is obliged to by law.
 
Only then, will those who donated be able to see exactly for what purpose the monies have been used, and only then will they be able to see at what point (s) this Fund had ONLY £couple thousand! ' 
 
Transparency Team clearly don't agree!
 
What we can see from the little that is available this year is that the closing balance on the Find Madeleine Fund, Financial Year End March 2015 is - £763,772 (in black)
 
As Team McCann are not paying for any private search at the present time (they stopped paying for a private search for their daughter a little time after the Metropolitan Police Investigation began, which was over 4 years ago) safe to say that SINCE March 2015 they have not spent too much, and that the above balance would be much the same now, as it was then, unless any huge expenditure had taken place, or any huge sum had been received as income.
 
Funnily enough, very recently Clarence Mitchell announced in press that the McCanns transferred £750K (of their own money ? ) to the Find Madeleine Fund, (set it aside for this purpose the article said) so on that basis, and logically, the Fund must be looking pretty darn healthy at this moment in time.   Around £1m and half!   Wow lots of money to spend on Madeleine then!
 
Well, healthy, IF we believe the story of the transference of the £750K, and just half as healthy if we don't.
 
But here's the rub.
 
WHY the urgency to transfer this £750K of (their own money ?) when there has been NO FORMAL date given for the Met Investigation to close, and no private detectives hired as yet to search for Madeleine?
 
Fund was sitting pretty, according to their Year End March 2015, plenty there to make any initial payments to say, a private investigator for instance, so why urgency to transfer, or at lease make a huge statement in the press that they had?
 
(The press, I must add, reported in reference to the McCanns transferring that money, that the McCanns were launching a new private search for Madeleine with the REMAINING £750K in the Fund? The implication was that this £750 K transferred, was all that was remaining?)
 
And so, it brings us back to all the questions which were asked at the time Clarence Mitchell spun the story in the press about this supposed transfer.  The biggie being:
 
  Why was the money NOT ALREADY in the Madeleine Fund, as any, and all monies, raised from book sales, public donations, and all else, according to the McCanns would go into the Fund and every last penny spent on finding the child?
 
If this had happened then there would have been no need for any transfer.
 
Why were funds being moved around?
Were funds being moved around?
Why is there nothing on their Fund Website to indicate that such a practice would operate?
 
Public I would think, believed as Gerry McCann stated, that all monies would go to a search for Madeleine, deposited in Find Madeleine Fund, bank account.   One might think with news of this transferring of funds, that they are trying to fool the public.
 
I guess, they have to wait until the Year End Accounts March 2016 to discover if that balance topped more than £1m just after the time, when the claim was made in the press, by the McCann spokesman, Clarence Mitchell, that £750K (of their own money?) was transferred to the Madeleine Fund Account.
 
Then again, when the Transparency 6 Team appear to be aspiring to, and have chosen to adopt in respect of what the public get to know, the best Sweet Fanny Adams, practices and processes..?
 
But isn't it the strangest coincidence that the closing balance at March 2015, is much the same as that of the alleged transfer?  
 
How will the public ever know for sure, how the Madeleine Fund operates, which bank account their donations are deposited...
 
...and how will they ever know if the the two amounts of £750K approximately, the alleged transferred amount, and the closing balance at Year End March 2015 figure, are one and the same?
 
Did they shift the Year End Balance to another account and then shift it back, hence Mitchell's announcement..?
 
l-azzeri-lies-in-the-sun.com
   
10th January 2015
avatar
Doug D

Posts : 3719
Activity : 5286
Likes received : 1299
Join date : 2013-12-03

Back to top Go down

Analysis of Fund accounts by Enid o'Dowd - Mccannfiles - Page 2 Empty Re: Analysis of Fund accounts by Enid o'Dowd - Mccannfiles

Post by Enid O'Dowd 10.01.16 12:43

A very good article by L-azzeri-lies-in-the-sun.
 
Below an extract from the official website:
 
(3) Why is Madeleine's Fund not registered as a charity?
Because Madeleine's Fund is currently focussed on searching for one child only, Madeleine McCann it cannot register as a charity. However in the future, if the objects of the fund are fulfilled and subsequently changed to concentrate on multiple similar cases, it may then be possible to acquire charitable status.


(4) Can gift aid or tax relief be claimed on my donation to Madeleine's Fund?
No it cannot because these are only available to registered charities.


(5) If Madeleine's Fund isn't a charity who is regulating it?
The directors regulate Madeleine's Fund and they aspire to follow best practice policies and processes used by charities. The directors have reviewed its operation against “Good Governance: A Code for the Voluntary and Community Sector”. This sets out best practice requirements for charities.
The Fund also has:

  • a Financial Procedures Manual
  • job descriptions for directors, chair and treasurer
  • clearly laid out policies and processes for:
  • payments
  • expense claims
  • risk management
  • whistle blowing
  • registering conflicts of interest

(6) Who are the directors of Madeleine's Fund?
There are six directors of the Fund. They are:

  • Brian Kennedy, a retired head teacher;
  • Edward Smethurst – A Commercial lawyer;
  • Jon Corner – Director of a media company;
  • Michael Linett- retired accountant
  • Kate McCann General Practitioner
  • Gerry McCann Consultant Cardiologist


End of extract.

The directors are the Transparency 6 Team in the article.

I think it is relevant to mention that the Fund is not a charity as there has been much confusion over this among the public.

However, one member of the Transparency 6 team, famously said ‘confusion is good.’

It is also appropriate for any ‘not for profit’ organisation as the Fund claims to be, that does not have charity status, to aim for best practice used by charities.

However, the history of the Fund does not indicate best practice, an important part of which is openness and transparency.

Donors to the Fund have been treated with utter contempt IMO.

At March 31 2015 allowing for the creditors at that date of £17,260, there was £746,152 available for the search. That’s a lot of money to have sitting in a bank account at todays very low interest rates.

It’s not believable that £750,000 would have been moved to the Fund after March 31 2015 as Clarence Mitchell would have us believe. What was the need to do that then? Why would anyone have £1,500,000 sitting in a bank account doing nothing and getting nominal interest?
 
L-azzeri asks -
Did they shift the Year End Balance to another account and then shift it back, hence Mitchell's announcement..?
 

I suspect L-azzeri may be right!

____________________
Author of Fateful Decisions: there's a fine line between acceptable parenting and neglect.   [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Author of A Review of the background to setting up the limited company Madeleine's Fund: leaving no Stone Unturned and a forensic examination of the company accounts. Available on [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
avatar
Enid O'Dowd
Researcher

Posts : 107
Activity : 132
Likes received : 21
Join date : 2013-11-14

http://www.enidodowd.com

Back to top Go down

Analysis of Fund accounts by Enid o'Dowd - Mccannfiles - Page 2 Empty Re: Analysis of Fund accounts by Enid o'Dowd - Mccannfiles

Post by Guest 10.01.16 12:44

Enid O'Dowd wrote:Verdi, to address the issues you raise:
 
Auditors cannot audit the accounts until after the end of the accounting period, which in the case of the Fund is March 31. Any company that wanted to be open and transparent would have its accounts audited as soon as possible after the year end and then filed promptly in Companies House.
 
The Fund has always filed very close to the latest legal date which is nine months after the accounting year end.
 
The merchandising costs to which you refer relate to the period from 15 May 2007 (date company incorporated) to 31 March 2008 and not to May 2007 to November 2007.
 

Regarding charity status, the official line is that the company did not meet the criteria for charity status as it was only concerned with one child rather than with missing children in general.  In my first report into the Fund published on [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] I described how I had obtained documents under the FOI Act  from the Charity Commission which led me to conclude that charity status was not a priority for the McCanns, and that some limited tweaking of the company documentation submitted to the Charity Commission would have resulted in charity status being granted. As you say Verdi, charity status involves a legal obligation for transparency, which is not something evidenced in the filed accounts despite the commitment given in the book madeleine.
Good day to you Enid O'Dowd!

What a total fool I am, I'm getting dates all muddled - must take more water with it! 

It's a complete mystery to me how I ever managed to achieve a pass in maths, perhaps I misunderstood the meaning of 'pass'.  I could be excused on the grounds that it was during the bean counting age, well before Arithmicatus Abacus invented the revolutionary calculator.   

I admit accountancy skills hover around zero for me so I will leave the detail to experts such as your good self.  However, I would still be interested to know how they managed to plough their way through over £500k on merchandise/campaign costs in such a comparatively short period of time.

NB:  I recall at the time thinking there was no urgency for a fund to be established - I think they said at the time it was to accommodate all the offers of financial aid pouring in from all corners of the globe, surely the money could have been retained in a holding account at a bank until such times as an appropriate Fund was established?  They also said in the early days that in the event of their private search (the word has forever baffled me) coming to an end, any surplus would be spread across recognized charitable organisations - maybe they could have incorporated that generous offer in the Fund's constitution in such a way as to qualify for charity status?  Haven't re-read your reports yet, no doubt it's all been covered therein!

howdy
Anonymous
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum