Why haven't the McCanns been charged with misuse of Fund Money: strange that this subject has not been investigated

Cordelia wrote:They have treated the Fund as their Piggy Bank and  employed the likes of Halligen and Metodo 3 , two retired Detectives with little knowledge of searching for missing children yet apart from the Daily Mail originally, no investigative reporting has been done.

Cordelia wrote:They have treated the Fund as their Piggy Bank and  employed the likes of Halligen and Metodo 3 , two retired Detectives with little knowledge of searching for missing children yet apart from the Daily Mail originally, no investigative reporting has been done.

Cordelia wrote:They have treated the Fund as their Piggy Bank and  employed the likes of Halligen and Metodo 3 , two retired Detectives with little knowledge of searching for missing children yet apart from the Daily Mail originally, no investigative reporting has been done.

Rasputin wrote:The WOC issue always puzzles me , they are surrounded by all manner of legal back-up , yet it would appear none of these legal boffins have mentioned that you cant apply for this money on Madeleine's behalf ? ...so Isnt this attempting to gain monies by deception ???

fossey wrote:I set up a company called Madeleine2 ltd.
I go round and beg everyone to donate into it to help search for the missing girl.
I flog t'shirts and crap quality wristbands to boost the income.
I raise a million.
I keep the million. (always wanted a Ferrari)
I would get lynched, arrested, prosecuted and then serve a lengthy custodial sentence for fraud.

Former detective inspector Dave, who grew up on Belfast’s Woodstock Road, was drafted in by Kate and Gerry McCann last November after Spanish investigators failed to find new leads.

The Ulster detective leading the search for Madeleine McCann today reveals his most chilling theories yet, exclusively to Sunday Life. Hardened ex-RUC cop Dave Edgar told us he is convinced that little Maddie is imprisoned in a hellish lair – just like kidnapped sex slave Jaycee Lee Dugard.

PeterMac wrote:

fossey wrote:I set up a company called Madeleine2 ltd.
I go round and beg everyone to donate into it to help search for the missing girl.
I flog t'shirts and crap quality wristbands to boost the income.
I raise a million.
I keep the million. (always wanted a Ferrari)
I would get lynched, arrested, prosecuted and then serve a lengthy custodial sentence for fraud.

EXCEPT - if you put out statements from time to time through a pink shirt lifter wearer saying that you have a list of suspects and you are going to
investigate them and then look for a Hellish lair in the lawless Hinterland within 10 miles of PdL.

It sound ludicrous, but he actually DID way that, and neither he, nor the entire McCann machine have ever resiled from that considered position.
And he charged the "Fund" for saying it

Cordelia wrote:They have treated the Fund as their Piggy Bank and  employed the likes of Halligen and Metodo 3 , two retired Detectives with little knowledge of searching for missing children yet apart from the Daily Mail originally, no investigative reporting has been done.

Cordelia wrote:They have treated the Fund as their Piggy Bank and  employed the likes of Halligen and Metodo 3 , two retired Detectives with little knowledge of searching for missing children yet apart from the Daily Mail originally, no investigative reporting has been done.

ultimaThule wrote:
As stated on their website, he McCanns' limited company Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited, also known as  'Madeleiene's Fund', was set up to:
   "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."

Can you please indicate which part of the above restricts the McCanns from using the limited company's income as their 'Piggy Bank' ?

ultimaThule wrote:I venture to suggest that if you or I were to set up a not for profit limited company for whatever purpose it's unlikely the year end accounts would show a surplus of several million £s Bishop, and, just as many other aspects of this case appear to be without precedent, I suspect that it may be unique in the annals of HM Customs & Revenue.

Enid O'Dowd has been casting her forensic accounting magnifying glass over the company's 'transparent' accounts since its inception [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] and has found them to be as clear as mud but, although its not possible to ascertain what sums have been expended for this purpose, one of the company's directors has told us the Towers is, or has been, used as their office and, presumably, in addition to flights and accomodation, the cost of childcare would be a legitimate expense if 2 directors were required to be absent from their home for an extended period on company related business.      

As with all things McCann, one simple question gives rise to a hundred others and it's to hoped that, at some point in time, all of them will be answered.

Châtelaine wrote:

Cordelia wrote:They have treated the Fund as their Piggy Bank and  employed the likes of Halligen and Metodo 3 , two retired Detectives with little knowledge of searching for missing children yet apart from the Daily Mail originally, no investigative reporting has been done.

***
Halligen and Metodo 3 are retired detectives ... ?

No chatelaine it was Dave and his Partner both retired Detectives in the U.K. I think their Company was called Alpha Communications or something similar, in fact No Stone Unturned never employed any Detectives experienced in searching for missing children,more like experienced money laundering, except maybe Alpha. 

Enid O'Dowd wrote:

ultimaThule wrote:I venture to suggest that if you or I were to set up a not for profit limited company for whatever purpose it's unlikely the year end accounts would show a surplus of several million £s Bishop, and, just as many other aspects of this case appear to be without precedent, I suspect that it may be unique in the annals of HM Customs & Revenue.

Enid O'Dowd has been casting her forensic accounting magnifying glass over the company's 'transparent' accounts since its inception [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] and has found them to be as clear as mud but, although its not possible to ascertain what sums have been expended for this purpose, one of the company's directors has told us the Towers is, or has been, used as their office and, presumably, in addition to flights and accomodation, the cost of childcare would be a legitimate expense if 2 directors were required to be absent from their home for an extended period on company related business.      

As with all things McCann, one simple question gives rise to a hundred others and it's to hoped that, at some point in time, all of them will be answered.

IMO the cost of childcare is not an allowable expense where directors are away on company business, either in this case or in general where directors have young children. 

I would presume that the McCanns would not have childcare expenses for the trip to Lisbon to attend the hearing other than the cost of a telephone call to granny Healy to ask her to stay in the family home to look after her two grandchildren.

The costs of using part of the home as an office for the company and the travel and accommodation costs relating to court cases and the search are allowable.  It is unclear from the audited accounts how much, indeed if anything, has been charged for such expenses.

ultimaThule wrote:

Cordelia wrote:They have treated the Fund as their Piggy Bank and  employed the likes of Halligen and Metodo 3 , two retired Detectives with little knowledge of searching for missing children yet apart from the Daily Mail originally, no investigative reporting has been done.

As stated on their website, he McCanns' limited company Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited, also known as  'Madeleiene's Fund', was set up to:
   "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."

Can you please indicate which part of the above restricts the McCanns from using the limited company's income as their 'Piggy Bank' and provide a link to the the 'investigative reporting' which you state has been been done by 'Daily Mail originally', Cordelia?

Esther McVey publicly declared that the Fund  Directors had agreed that the Fund would not be used for the McCanns  expenses , a couple of months later , it was, so Esther resigned.



While writing, I would  suggest you ask the Mods to move this thread to a more relevant topic such as this one:   ?????https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t8363-new-members-please-put-your-questions-on-this-thread#195362

Eta a reminder that fossey asked to provide a link on this thread yesterday: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]    ???????


I'm sorry, i don't know what you mean, Iv'e been out most of the day so just checking my e-mails 

Enid O'Dowd wrote:

ultimaThule wrote:I venture to suggest that if you or I were to set up a not for profit limited company for whatever purpose it's unlikely the year end accounts would show a surplus of several million £s Bishop, and, just as many other aspects of this case appear to be without precedent, I suspect that it may be unique in the annals of HM Customs & Revenue.

Enid O'Dowd has been casting her forensic accounting magnifying glass over the company's 'transparent' accounts since its inception [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] and has found them to be as clear as mud but, although its not possible to ascertain what sums have been expended for this purpose, one of the company's directors has told us the Towers is, or has been, used as their office and, presumably, in addition to flights and accomodation, the cost of childcare would be a legitimate expense if 2 directors were required to be absent from their home for an extended period on company related business.      

As with all things McCann, one simple question gives rise to a hundred others and it's to hoped that, at some point in time, all of them will be answered.

IMO the cost of childcare is not an allowable expense where directors are away on company business, either in this case or in general where directors have young children. 

I would presume that the McCanns would not have childcare expenses for the trip to Lisbon to attend the hearing other than the cost of a telephone call to granny Healy to ask her to stay in the family home to look after her two grandchildren.

The costs of using part of the home as an office for the company and the travel and accommodation costs relating to court cases and the search are allowable.  It is unclear from the audited accounts how much, indeed if anything, has been charged for such expenses.

ultimaThule wrote:I venture to suggest that if you or I were to set up a not for profit limited company for whatever purpose it's unlikely the year end accounts would show a surplus of several million £s Bishop, and, just as many other aspects of this case appear to be without precedent, I suspect that it may be unique in the annals of HM Customs & Revenue.

Enid O'Dowd has been casting her forensic accounting magnifying glass over the company's 'transparent' accounts since its inception [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] and has found them to be as clear as mud but, although its not possible to ascertain what sums have been expended for this purpose, one of the company's directors has told us the Towers is, or has been, used as their office and, presumably, in addition to flights and accomodation, the cost of childcare would be a legitimate expense if 2 directors were required to be absent from their home for an extended period on company related business.      

As with all things McCann, one simple question gives rise to a hundred others and it's to hoped that, at some point in time, all of them will be answered.