The Rangers soap opera goes on and on.

[jamboruss]

We need one of our court/legal wise people to compile an e-mail template to question the WFA.

 

ALL supports of ALL non erse-cheeks should bombard them.

 

We need an erse-cheek free association (one of) based in Perth or Stirling or anywhere non-weegie,(and not infested with bigot - brother sympathisers) who are there for the benefit of ALL clubs! 

[Mikey1874]

I love a bit of Lawyer v Lawyer banter

 

Court shown email from Horne, 28 Feb 2011, "The ISC is able to do it's own DD" Horne We were comfortable with Whyte's advisers

Findlay suggests notes show Horne knew in Nov 2010 Whyte was in contact with Octopus re a ?15m loan facility. 1/2

Horne "That would appear to be the case" Adds thought was just for working capital 2/2

Findlay asks if Horne asked Whyte about Octopus? Horne "We weren't aware"

Horne, "You can't read the share purchase agreement in isolation from other documents Mr Findlay"

Horne, there was a binding undertaking Findlay "Any contract can be broken Mr Horne"

Findlay "Are you seriously suggesting you signed a contract without a remedy if it was broken?" Horne "You are a criminal lawyer Mr Findlay"

Adds "Not a corporate lawyer" Findlay "Discourtesy doesn't help" Horne "Don't take it personally Mr Findlay" Judge intervenes"

Lady Stacey "We have to listen to this, discourtesy doesn't help anyone"

 

 

That's it until Tuesday when the Crown will call their last witness. He/She is coming from overseas, so in theory could be Johnston, King, or someone else who has just been or holiday or doing business out the country.

That exchange in itself could be the opening scene for the film

 

Al Pacino as Donald Findlay

[jambovambo]

We all read on here years ago that Whyte had spent money having his background cleansed from the internet.

 

It evidently worked - although SDM's people admit they didn't try very hard.

 

I mean, seriously...

[CJGJ]

We all read on here years ago that Whyte had spent money having his background cleansed from the internet.

 

It evidently worked - although SDM's people admit they didn't try very hard.

 

I mean, seriously...

Why should they ?

 

Do people here check the buyer of the house they are selling ?...no.

[Pistol1874]

Why should they ?

 

Do people here check the buyer of the house they are selling ?...no.

Definitely the same. You'd expect the solicitors to confirm source of funds and that the money paying for your house actually belongs to the purchaser, indeed it's incumbent on them.

Edited May 26, 2017 by Pistol1874

[hurdie]

Why should they ?

 

Do people here check the buyer of the house they are selling ?...no.

Seriously? When selling a house you do not have the interests of thousands of shareholders to protect. Murray did, Murray didn't care, he wanted rid. He and the rest of the board had a duty of care for the shareholders.

[Mikey1874]

Why should they ?

 

Do people here check the buyer of the house they are selling ?...no.

Money laundering rules I think

[RobNox]

That exchange in itself could be the opening scene for the film

 

Al Pacino as Donald Findlay

Nah, Joe Pesci.  Resurrecting his role in 'My Cousin Vinny'

[AllyjamboDerbyshire]

Why should they ?

 

Do people here check the buyer of the house they are selling ?...no.

Do people create a list of 'must dos' for the purchaser of their house, or worry about what happens to the house after they've left? Does the seller of a house, allegedly, worry about where the money is coming from to buy the house?

 

Of course they don't.

 

This is a fairly unique situation (and really not comparable to a house sale) where it was important to the seller (for his own sake) to hide the fact he'd let Rangers FC's value run down to well below zero. He included conditions that required a fortune to meet and, if he was at all serious about caring about what happened to the club after he sold it then he should have carried out some basic checks of Craig Whyte. Apparently he had done so with previous interested parties. Somehow, the experts he was employing couldn't even match the efforts of the internet bampots, who'd discovered all that was needed to know about Whyte in less time than it took Scotland's leading sports writer to pen 'wealth off the radar' and 'Motherwell Born Billionaire'. All part of the media service given to that knight of the realm.

 

It is clear from the evidence given by Murray's own people that Murray was desperate to offload Rangers in order to feather his own nest, and he certainly didn't want anyone to find that out. Murray either knew Whyte was virtually pot-less, or decided he didn't want to know, in either case the veneer he created to fool the bears was just another lie. Ironic, then, that he might have got away with it if the crown hadn't decided to take Whyte to court. He might still get away with it, if the SMSM continue to avoid publishing anything detrimental to their lamb provider.

 

Regardless of Whyte's guilt or innocence, David Murray's part in the sale of Rangers is shameful, to say the least and he is no more of an injured party than Whyte is.

 

I do wonder, though, if Alistair Johnston was aware of the largess being bestowed on Murray by Lloyds on the proviso that he got rid of Rangers when he did!

[Mikey1874]

If Murray knew administration was coming all he may have cared about was it didn't happen on his watch.

[Footballfirst]

Why should they ?

 

Do people here check the buyer of the house they are selling ?...no.

Not the best analogy.

 

I can't say that I've heard of anyone selling their house for ?1, with conditions that they pay the outstanding Council Tax bill that I had accumulated, that they repair the damaged roof tiles and employing a gardener to keep the garden looking rosy. All to be achieved without sub-letting part of the house to take in lodgers to help pay the bills.

[Tommy Brown]

If Murray knew administration was coming all he may have cared about was it didn't happen on his watch.

I hope you are being sarcastic, "If Murray knew administration was coming"

 

A blind man can see, it was all about not making Murray look like the bad guy.

 

He couldn't have given a shit if Whytey even could raise the ?1, FFS.

 

Bail out, bail out, bail out.

[RobNox]

I hope you are being sarcastic, "If Murray knew administration was coming"

 

A blind man can see, it was all about not making Murray look like the bad guy.

 

He couldn't have given a shit if Whytey even could raise the ?1, FFS.

 

Bail out, bail out, bail out.

This.

 

Hence the clause in the sale contract that said Whyte couldn't bad mouth Murray after the deal.  Murray knew that Whyte was in for some nasty surprises.

 

And Murray subsequently claimed he was duped 

[Elias Henry Furst]

Why should they ?

 

Do people here check the buyer of the house they are selling ?...no.

Oh dear.

[269miles]

Do people create a list of 'must dos' for the purchaser of their house, or worry about what happens to the house after they've left? Does the seller of a house, allegedly, worry about where the money is coming from to buy the house?

 

Of course they don't.

 

This is a fairly unique situation (and really not comparable to a house sale) where it was important to the seller (for his own sake) to hide the fact he'd let Rangers FC's value run down to well below zero. He included conditions that required a fortune to meet and, if he was at all serious about caring about what happened to the club after he sold it then he should have carried out some basic checks of Craig Whyte. Apparently he had done so with previous interested parties. Somehow, the experts he was employing couldn't even match the efforts of the internet bampots, who'd discovered all that was needed to know about Whyte in less time than it took Scotland's leading sports writer to pen 'wealth off the radar' and 'Motherwell Born Billionaire'. All part of the media service given to that knight of the realm.

 

It is clear from the evidence given by Murray's own people that Murray was desperate to offload Rangers in order to feather his own nest, and he certainly didn't want anyone to find that out. Murray either knew Whyte was virtually pot-less, or decided he didn't want to know, in either case the veneer he created to fool the bears was just another lie. Ironic, then, that he might have got away with it if the crown hadn't decided to take Whyte to court. He might still get away with it, if the SMSM continue to avoid publishing anything detrimental to their lamb provider.

 

Regardless of Whyte's guilt or innocence, David Murray's part in the sale of Rangers is shameful, to say the least and he is no more of an injured party than Whyte is.

 

I do wonder, though, if Alistair Johnston was aware of the largess being bestowed on Murray by Lloyds on the proviso that he got rid of Rangers when he did!

I admire your stoicism in the face of utter stupidity. 

[The Gasman]

Seriously? When selling a house you do not have the interests of thousands of shareholders to protect. Murray did, Murray didn't care, he wanted rid. He and the rest of the board had a duty of care for the shareholders.

....and with what is coming to light during this case, it may be of interest to the FSA as to whether SDM actually met his legal responsibility to the Rangers shareholders.

[Jamdub]

Ask Regan cos I just have .I will get no answer he should be hounded out of office and not just him

Along with his sleazeball smug pal Doncaster, get rid.

[AllyjamboDerbyshire]

I admire your stoicism in the face of utter stupidity. 

I see that face every morning while shaving  .  If I can face that plonker with splendid stoicism on a daily basis, I can face the posts of CJGJ in the same manner  

 

In truth, I am convinced he absolutely hates both versions of Rangers, and also David Murray (aka David Fraser), but just loves to read posts that set out what is/was so wrong about them all that he likes to set the ball rolling whenever he can. I am sure he'll be along any minute to explain to us all just how it is that a na?ve innocent like David Murray can be duped by the much more knowledgeable, and even more powerful, Craig Whyte! Then he'll revel in the posts that blow his pretend (just like TRFC) love of all things Rangers-tinted, apart  

[CJGJ]

Definitely the same. You'd expect the solicitors to confirm source of funds and that the money paying for your house actually belongs to the purchaser, indeed it's incumbent on them.

Actually if a purchaser has the funds in their account that's all that is required.....many people pay for a house with funds they already have in the bank

 

Still lets not let the truth get in the way

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Actually if a purchaser has the funds in their account that's all that is required.....many people pay for a house with funds they already have in the bank

 

Still lets not let the truth get in the way

And Craig Whyte paid the purchase price so your analogy is a bit shit.

[jamboz]

And Craig Whyte paid the purchase price so your analogy is a bit shit.

 

Not just a bit shit.  It is the golgothan of analogies.

[jambovambo]

And Craig Whyte paid the purchase price so your analogy is a bit shit.

.. flicked it across the table, to be exact.

 

Classy.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

Actually if a purchaser has the funds in their account that's all that is required.....many people pay for a house with funds they already have in the bank

 

Still lets not let the truth get in the way

 

Actually the truth is, whilst many people use the money that they have in the bank to fund a house purchase, they are required by law to provide written documentation as to the source of those funds which are to be used in the purchase.

 

I had to fulfil this legal requirement only 4 months ago when I bought a house with cash that I had in the bank, I had to prove to the satisfaction of the solicitors as to where I got the money from and that it was not the proceeds of crime or money-laundering, before the sale could be completed.

[milky_26]

Actually the truth is, whilst many people use the money that they have in the bank to fund a house purchase, they are required by law to provide written documentation as to the source of those funds which are to be used in the purchase.

 

I had to fulfil this legal requirement only 4 months ago when I bought a house with cash that I had in the bank, I had to prove to the satisfaction of the solicitors as to where I got the money from and that it was not the proceeds of crime or money-laundering, before the sale could be completed.

exactly for my house deposit i had to provide x amount of months statements that it was in my account for a while. Or i would have had to prove where it came from. Also if paying cash for a car at a dealer they need to know where the money is from because of money laundering 

[Diadora Van Basten]

exactly for my house deposit i had to provide x amount of months statements that it was in my account for a while. Or i would have had to prove where it came from. Also if paying cash for a car at a dealer they need to know where the money is from because of money laundering

I suspect that this was required to satisfy your mortgage provider rather than the sellor.

[john5698]

Actually the truth is, whilst many people use the money that they have in the bank to fund a house purchase, they are required by law to provide written documentation as to the source of those funds which are to be used in the purchase.

 

I had to fulfil this legal requirement only 4 months ago when I bought a house with cash that I had in the bank, I had to prove to the satisfaction of the solicitors as to where I got the money from and that it was not the proceeds of crime or money-laundering, before the sale could be completed.

In the last couple of years have assisted my son and daughter with deposits for house purchases, on both occasions was asked by their solicitor for my bank statements for the last six months.

[Mikey1874]

Actually the truth is, whilst many people use the money that they have in the bank to fund a house purchase, they are required by law to provide written documentation as to the source of those funds which are to be used in the purchase.

 

I had to fulfil this legal requirement only 4 months ago when I bought a house with cash that I had in the bank, I had to prove to the satisfaction of the solicitors as to where I got the money from and that it was not the proceeds of crime or money-laundering, before the sale could be completed.

Just been applying for a current account

 

They are doing more checks than Rangers did on Whyte

[Yipeekaiyay]

Just been applying for a current account

 

They are doing more checks than Rangers did on Whyte

Dear Mr Mikey1874,

 

We are pleased to let you know your application has been successful.

 

We have had the SMSM investigate you and it appears you seem to have "wealth off the radar!!!"

 

Sent from my GT-I9195I using Tapatalk

[Hagar the Horrible]

And we are off with the last witness for the prosecution..its   nobody they have rested their case...WTF  

 

 

Will there be witnesses for the defence next????

[Hagar the Horrible]

I think the case against Whyte is about to collapse??????  just amendments now??????

[Brave Hearts]

And we are off with the last witness for the prosecution..its nobody they have rested their case...WTF

 

 

Will there be witnesses for the defence next????

They have rested their case ????

 

Doesn't seem that they have very much of a case based on what the Prosecution have presented..........

[Hagar the Horrible]

They have rested their case ????

 

Doesn't seem that they have very much of a case based on what the Prosecution have presented..........

They had one  more witness, who was due back in the country, so it looks like that has fallen through, the jury have been sent home for the day, and there is legal matters to discuss, by Findlay?  I would assume to get the case dropped altogether?????? but there wont be much rreporting if anything about today, I suppose I will need to go and do some work.

[Footballfirst]

They had one  more witness, who was due back in the country, so it looks like that has fallen through, the jury have been sent home for the day, and there is legal matters to discuss, by Findlay?  I would assume to get the case dropped altogether?????? but there wont be much rreporting if anything about today, I suppose I will need to go and do some work.

I agree that there is every possibility that Findlay will be asking the judge if the Crown has done enough to to secure a conviction, and if not to direct the jury to find Whyte not guilty.

 

That is purely guesswork on my part though.

[Mikey1874]

Been like we've had the defence witnesses these last weeks

[kingdannyb]

James Doleman? @jamesdoleman  2h2 hours ago

More

Breaking: Prosecution rest their case against Craig Whyte

 

So what happens next ?

[Mikey1874]

James Doleman? @jamesdoleman 2h2 hours ago

 

 

More

 

Breaking: Prosecution rest their case against Craig Whyte

 

So what happens next ?

Normally either defence witnesses or if there are none closing statements by lawyers, judge gives jury advice then it's up to jury.

 

People saying meantime Findlay may be seeking to get case dismissed due to case not being made.

[Skivingatwork]

My head says the crown haven't done enough to secure a conviction and the case should be thrown out as a result.

 

My heart says bring on the defence case, witnesses, popcorn et al as it will be great theatre.

[kingdannyb]

Both sides shafted the taxman, the minor shareholders and the fans.

Send them all to jail.

[Glamorgan Jambo]

Interesting who the crown haven't called as witnesses. None of the RFC directors from the run up to insolvency, nobody from the insolvency service, nobody, apart from colour commentators like Smith and McCoist who was any part of the management or administration of RFC before or after the transaction.

 

Not sure whether in Scots law you can refuse to be a witness but the next few weeks, assuming the case continues, should be fun.

[jamboy1982]

Seems to me that the case collapsing would suit whyte, obviously but also Murray and others. They have aired a very small amount of dirty laundry without too much getting out.

[John Findlay]

Seems to me that the case collapsing would suit whyte, obviously but also Murray and others. They have aired a very small amount of dirty laundry without too much getting out.

Precisely. The cynic in me says this has been a sham trial from the start. No one will be convicted with regard to old Rangers and everything can indeed be swept under the carpet. Complete waste of tax payers money. Procurator Fiscal's office should be hauled over the coals for this. Alas won't be.

[Hagar the Horrible]

Interesting who the crown haven't called as witnesses. None of the RFC directors from the run up to insolvency, nobody from the insolvency service, nobody, apart from colour commentators like Smith and McCoist who was any part of the management or administration of RFC before or after the transaction.

 

Not sure whether in Scots law you can refuse to be a witness but the next few weeks, assuming the case continues, should be fun.

Not sure why they have not called somebody from Ticketus, as to why they gave a ?25m loan???? unless DF does?

[sairyinthat]

I would think Findlay will be praying the case gets thrown out,Crown will slaughter the defence witnesses.

[Deevers]

Precisely. The cynic in me says this has been a sham trial from the start. No one will be convicted with regard to old Rangers and everything can indeed be swept under the carpet. Complete waste of tax payers money. Procurator Fiscal's office should be hauled over the coals for this. Alas won't be.

 

My thoughts on this as well.

 

Maybe too many "Establishment" figures were going to be thoroughly embarrassed by the revelations.

[doctor jambo]

The trial is over.

He's about to walk

[CJGJ]

And Craig Whyte paid the purchase price so your analogy is a bit shit.

Ignorance is bliss it seems for you

 

One day you will learn but until then it's up to me to guide you and others in realities not fantasies.

 

Whyte's issue is the question of whether he misled others as to where the funds came from when asked but still try and deflect all you want ..if someone tells a lie re source of funds that is the issue.. if the money is in an account and has been sourced legally there is no issue but you don't get investigated as to the source when you buy a house  FOR EXAMPLE.

[Footballfirst]

Not sure why they have not called somebody from Ticketus, as to why they gave a ?25m loan???? unless DF does?

 

The Crown called Ross Bryan from and Mario Berti from Octopus (Ticketus' parent company)

[FORTHCLYDE]

I had to produce ten forms of ID for the house I bought 5 years ago along with six months bank statements.

They even produced a microscope to examine my passport. 

[Footballfirst]

Section 97 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 may give a clue to what Findlay is doing.

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1995/46/section/97

 

97 No case to answer.

(1) Immediately after the close of the evidence for the prosecution, the accused may intimate to the court his desire to make a submission that he has no case to answer both?

(a.) on an offence charged in the indictment; and

(b.) on any other offence of which he could be convicted under the indictment.

(2) If, after hearing both parties, the judge is satisfied that the evidence led by the prosecution is insufficient in law to justify the accused being convicted of the offence charged in respect of which the submission has been made or of such other offence as is mentioned, in relation to that offence, in paragraph (b.) of subsection (1) above, he shall acquit him of the offence charged in respect of which the submission has been made and the trial shall proceed only in respect of any other offence charged in the indictment.

(3) If, after hearing both parties, the judge is not satisfied as is mentioned in subsection (2) above, he shall reject the submission and the trial shall proceed, with the accused entitled to give evidence and call witnesses, as if such submission had not been made.

(4) A submission under subsection (1) above shall be heard by the judge in the absence of the jury.

Edited May 30, 2017 by Footballfirst

[buzzbomb1958]

Free the Govan one