Bernie in the dock
Discussion
F1's Ecclestone speaks at German banker's bribe trial
Bernie Ecclestone Mr Ecclestone has said he expects to be cleared of any wrong doing
Formula 1 supremo Bernie Ecclestone has told a court in Munich that he paid a former banker to avoid a potentially costly tax investigation.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15664154
Bernie Ecclestone Mr Ecclestone has said he expects to be cleared of any wrong doing
Formula 1 supremo Bernie Ecclestone has told a court in Munich that he paid a former banker to avoid a potentially costly tax investigation.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15664154
I'm pleased he has explained it all as I did have one or two doubts that sort of seeped in. Now I see it all.
Bernie paid Gribkowsky £27.5 million as a bribe to stop Gribkowsky from informing the tax authorities of the fact that he hadn't paid all his tax due. This at a time when he was mates with Blair, a politician well known for not abusing friendships.
As a bribe it seemed to work perfectly as Gribkowsky then paid Bernie $41.4 million plus an undisclosed sum to the Eccs' Bambino family trust.
And to think I've always been worried about being blackmailed. It shows I just haven't understood the MO all that well.
My figures taken from the Daily Mail report on this trial:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2059483/Be...
This comes at a time when the concord agreement is up for negotiation. Bernie needs to be in a position of strength and one would assume that this is not going to push him that way.
Bernie paid Gribkowsky £27.5 million as a bribe to stop Gribkowsky from informing the tax authorities of the fact that he hadn't paid all his tax due. This at a time when he was mates with Blair, a politician well known for not abusing friendships.
As a bribe it seemed to work perfectly as Gribkowsky then paid Bernie $41.4 million plus an undisclosed sum to the Eccs' Bambino family trust.
And to think I've always been worried about being blackmailed. It shows I just haven't understood the MO all that well.
My figures taken from the Daily Mail report on this trial:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2059483/Be...
This comes at a time when the concord agreement is up for negotiation. Bernie needs to be in a position of strength and one would assume that this is not going to push him that way.
NHK244V said:
So it wasn't a bribe it was in fact a errrr,,, bribe but! a totaly differant bribe to the bribe he was accused of bribing the defendant with ?
You've cracked it I see.The original suggestion, whether from Bernie himself or from a reporter, was that it was payment under duress - blackmail. But the Mail article takes pains to say that there was no threat from Gribs and it was only an assumption that Bernie made.
Bernie is, bless 'im, just an employee of CVC at the moment.
The unfortunate thing is that if (IF?) Bernie comes out of all this stained then CVC might want shot of him and the commercial rights. The only purchaser in the field at the moment, or at least who has expressed an interest, is Murdoch.
That will mean a line of bricks at every circuit I assume.
Derek Smith said:
You've cracked it I see.
The original suggestion, whether from Bernie himself or from a reporter, was that it was payment under duress - blackmail. But the Mail article takes pains to say that there was no threat from Gribs and it was only an assumption that Bernie made.
Bernie is, bless 'im, just an employee of CVC at the moment.
The unfortunate thing is that if (IF?) Bernie comes out of all this stained then CVC might want shot of him and the commercial rights. The only purchaser in the field at the moment, or at least who has expressed an interest, is Murdoch.
That will mean a line of bricks at every circuit I assume.
I have a feeling Murdoch would have trouble getting the rights due to competition issues.The original suggestion, whether from Bernie himself or from a reporter, was that it was payment under duress - blackmail. But the Mail article takes pains to say that there was no threat from Gribs and it was only an assumption that Bernie made.
Bernie is, bless 'im, just an employee of CVC at the moment.
The unfortunate thing is that if (IF?) Bernie comes out of all this stained then CVC might want shot of him and the commercial rights. The only purchaser in the field at the moment, or at least who has expressed an interest, is Murdoch.
That will mean a line of bricks at every circuit I assume.
What's actually going to happen is that CVC will put the rights to market around the time that the Concorde agreement is due, and then Bernie will form a consortium with the teams and buy the rights back again. He will make even more money out of it somehow.
Bedazzled said:
bbc said:
While immune for his testimony, he could still be prosecuted for any actual wrongdoing.
What the hell does that mean??davepoth said:
I have a feeling Murdoch would have trouble getting the rights due to competition issues.
What's actually going to happen is that CVC will put the rights to market around the time that the Concorde agreement is due, and then Bernie will form a consortium with the teams and buy the rights back again. He will make even more money out of it somehow.
That is a distinct possibility but that would, I think, be the worst thing that could happen to the sport. There are only two or three teams that would be able to pay anything significant towards the Rights purchase which would mean they would govern the sport to an extent. We've already seen what happens when one team is favoured in this way.What's actually going to happen is that CVC will put the rights to market around the time that the Concorde agreement is due, and then Bernie will form a consortium with the teams and buy the rights back again. He will make even more money out of it somehow.
However, this trial is big and I would assume there is more to come out of it. A lot depends on how deeply the court goes into the dealings that Bernie had with Gribs.
Bernie is damaged and my understanding of this absolution given to him is that the bribe will not be pursued (on the assumption that he told the whole truth) but that the tax evasion might. Bernie did not have to give evidence to the court. His reasons for doing so are not clear of course. However, turning up to expose himself does not give the impression of controlling from a position of strength.
paulrockliffe said:
Bedazzled said:
What the hell does that mean??
It means they won't bang him up for the bribe, but they might bang him up for the £2bn tax fraud he appears to have implicated himself in.(I appreciate it'll be far more complicated than this but it seems a bit of an odd defence).
shoggoth1 said:
paulrockliffe said:
Bedazzled said:
What the hell does that mean??
It means they won't bang him up for the bribe, but they might bang him up for the £2bn tax fraud he appears to have implicated himself in.(I appreciate it'll be far more complicated than this but it seems a bit of an odd defence).
Megaflow said:
Very much so... If he is prepared to dish out £27.5m to avoid a tax investigation, that must be one hell of a tax bill Hejaz avoided. Or it really was a bribe and he didn't think before opening his cake hole. Either way I can't see him coming out of this smelling of roses, unless he gets his wallet out again of course.
First, would BE be personally liable, or would the trust be liable? Given that the trust is for the benefit of his ex-wife and children, who have more than enough money with or without a tax bill, does it now matter?Second, BE is many years older and - frankly - closer to death. With sensible deployment of lawyers, he ought to be able to eek out an investigation - especially a complex one, as this one undoubtedly will be - for many years. Appeals to higher powers would take up some more years, and then... well, he's unlikely to care (statistically speaking).
Therefore this defence seems a reasonable strategy to me.
skwdenyer said:
Therefore this defence seems a reasonable strategy to me.
Just to clarify, you are not suggesting that this is just a strategy and not the whole truth are you, are you? Be careful with your choice of words. Even newspapers do not suggest that the bribe was in any way intended to grease the way to the consultancy payment. I've not seen that written anywhere."The tax risk would have exceeded two billion pounds." according to this...
http://www.autocar.co.uk/blogs/racinglines/archive...
http://www.autocar.co.uk/blogs/racinglines/archive...
Derek Smith said:
skwdenyer said:
Therefore this defence seems a reasonable strategy to me.
Just to clarify, you are not suggesting that this is just a strategy and not the whole truth are you, are you? Be careful with your choice of words. Even newspapers do not suggest that the bribe was in any way intended to grease the way to the consultancy payment. I've not seen that written anywhere.
As I say, if Bambino's tax is in fact the problem of its beneficiaries and not of BE then BE may have a different outlook...I take the point that somebody might want to try to link events together to create a certain impression, but I haven't done so.
AS I understand it all HMRC have to prove is that he has been 'directing' the family trust which wouldn't be difficult given his statement to the German court. The trust could then be proved to be a sham with the resultant tax assessment - by his own admission he may get a bill from the UK tax authorities for billions - in this economic and political climate I can't see HMRC missing this one....not a blooming chance
Wish said:
I have to pay my taxes ... so should this evil little man.
I'd be very very surprised if he doesn't pay taxes. Probably more in taxes than you and I earn in a year and then some. Unless your post wasn't intended to be factually correct and is a statement of jealousy instead. In which case, carry on!
Wish said:
I have to pay my taxes ... so should this evil little man.
The point about the family trust is:- it has its own trustees;
- its beneficiaries are BE's (ex) wife and children;
- he can't get his hands on the contents thereof.
If the trust has to pay tax, I'd imagine that the trust has to pay it, not BE personally. He might be upset at that, but it won't be him who suffers.
Forums | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff