Jacksgranda Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 Yep. The Rangers fans in Aberdeen must be really fucking thick. You ever lived there, ben? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The DA Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 Not surprisingly you're beguiled by the utter scum from the east end whose aberrant behaviour you're so tolerant of. The point of this trial isn't about a fraudulent transaction but about fraudulent acquisition of funds. Id est, the difference between buying a stolen car and using stolen money to buy a car. That subtlety is what is taxing the brains of the pathetic morons in grey and green. It is, of course. The fraud case has no football implications. Tweetgate? You really can't see how disturbing that is? Live court reporting isn't new - http://www.bbc.co.uk/academy/journalism/article/art20130702112133638. Is your concern about tweeting from court in general or is it about who's doing it? The fact that he's being paid doesn't strike me as being much different from it being a DR man. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 Not surprisingly you're beguiled by the utter scum from the east end whose aberrant behaviour you're so tolerant of. The point of this trial isn't about a fraudulent transaction but about fraudulent acquisition of funds. Id est, the difference between buying a stolen car and using stolen money to buy a car. That subtlety is what is taxing the brains of the pathetic morons in grey and green. Leaving aside the staggering degree of prejudice you're now displaying to people you wish to lump together, I had not appreciated that the trial concerns only how Green and co came up with the £5.5m. Is that what you're saying? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
williemillersmoustache Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 Not surprisingly you're beguiled by the utter scum from the east end whose aberrant behaviour you're so tolerant of. The point of this trial isn't about a fraudulent transaction but about fraudulent acquisition of funds. Id est, the difference between buying a stolen car and using stolen money to buy a car. That subtlety is what is taxing the brains of the pathetic morons in grey and green. It is, of course. The fraud case has no football implications. Tweetgate? You really can't see how disturbing that is? If you like, you could wait for the remaining 26 pages of the indictment which the redoubtable Doleman is transcribing for us, before passing ignorant comment on what something is or is not about. Live court reporting isn't new - http://www.bbc.co.uk/academy/journalism/article/art20130702112133638. Is your concern about tweeting from court in general or is it about who's doing it? The fact that he's being paid doesn't strike me as being much different from it being a DR man. Rumour has it that he may be a left-footer. Because this sort of discrimination is fine, isn't it you lovable old rogue Kinky? Leaving aside the staggering degree of prejudice you're now displaying to people you wish to lump together, I had not appreciated that the trial concerns only how Green and co came up with the £5.5m. Is that what you're saying? The chaps from Duff & Phelps aren't on trial for that are they? (no, no they're not) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin Z Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 (edited) Leaving aside the staggering degree of prejudice you're now displaying to people you wish to lump together, I had not appreciated that the trial concerns only how Green and co came up with the £5.5m. Is that what you're saying? That's the bit that has me confused also, especially considering this summary of the charges . . . ... 1. CW, GW, DG, DW, PC conspired to obtain funds by fraud from Jerome, Merchant and Ticketus to fund the fraudulent purchase of the club (offence was aggravated) CW & GW obtained £2,825,000 by fraud from the trustees of the Jerome Pension Fund CW & GW obtained £1,000,00 by fraud from Merchant Turnaround PLC CW, GW & DG made false representations to Rangers Independent committee about the funding of the purchase CW & GW obtained £24,337,094 by fraud from Ticketus CW & GW made false representations to the Takeover panel re the funding CW failed to disclose a disqualification as a director CW & GW made false representation to the PLUS stock exchange re CW’s disqualification CW, GW & DG made false representations to Murray Holdings Ltd re funding of the purchase and the future funding of the club including the wee tax case (£2,800,000) and an H&S liability (£1,700,000) 2. CW & GW contravened the proceeds of crime act using the £28,262,094 obtained by fraud when purchasing the club 3. DG, DW & PC failed to report suspicions of Money Laundering by CW & GW using “Financial Assistance” to purchase the club, contrary to the proceeds of crime act 4. CW, GW, DG, DW, PC did conspire together to act as in Charge 1 5. CW & GW breached the Companies Act by using the clubs own money to fund the acquisition (Financial Assistance” 6. CW & GW committed fraud by failing to disclose CW’s disqualification to the SFA 7. CW & DG committed fraud by falsely submitting invoices for £253,800 to Rangers which should have been submitted to Liberty Capital. 8. CW & DG committed fraud by falsely submitting invoices for £409,320 to Rangers which should have been submitted to Liberty Capital. 9. CW & DG committed fraud by falsely submitting invoices for £66,120 to Rangers which should have been submitted to Liberty Capital. 10. CW, GW, DG, DW & PC conspired to defraud creditors, including non-payment of taxes and while they ran the club in order to facilitate CW in buying back the club debt free, which was in breach of the Companies Act 11. DW & PC perverted the course of justice when stating to Lord Hodge that they were unaware of the Ticketus arrangements 12. CW, GW, DW, PC, CG & IA conspired to defraud creditors by purchasing the club’s business and assets significantly below market value. CW, DW & PC sought to put the club in administration• Caused the court to appoint DW & PC as administrators DW & PC falsely pretended to act in the interests of all creditors CG falsely presented himself as an independent purchaser DW & PC pretended that the purpose of administration was to get the best return for creditors CW acquired Sevco 5088 of which CG was appointed director• CG received £25,000 from CW to pay legal fees related to Sevco 5088 CG paid the legal fees with the £25,000 IA paid the administrators DW & PC £200,000 as an exclusivity fee DW & PC granted Sevco 5088 exclusivity to the exclusion of other prospective purchasers CW paid £137,000 into IA’s mother’s account as part payment of the exclusivity fee DW & PC completed a sale and purchase agreement with CG on behalf of both Sevco 5088 and Sevco Scotland for a price of £5,500,000, significantly below market value. DW & PC falsely advised creditors that SPL prize money was reflected in the consideration paid for the assets, but the sale and purchase agreement reflected a “nil” consideration CG permitted the transfer of £291,823.10 from Rangers Youth Development to help fund the purchase of assets 13. CW, GW, DW, PC, CG & IA participated in a conspiracy to purchase the business and assets of the club depriving creditors of the rightful sums due to them and the material benefit going to themselves 14. CW and IA defrauded investors in Sevco 5088 and RIFC, acquiring money and shares by fraud and to increase the value of their shares in RIFC CW pretended he had no interest in Sevco 5088• Induced investors to put £5,500,000 into Sevco 5088 CG caused the change of exclusivity from Sevco 5088 to Sevco Scotland without proper approval CG did appropriate the £5,500,000 invested in Sevco 5088 by fraud without the investors knowledge or agreement CG & IA allotted themselves 2,000,000 shares CG & IA changed the name of Sevco Scotland to The Rangers Football Club CG & IA appointed Cenkos as a nomad but failed to advise them of the source of funding through Sevco 5088 CG & IA thereby raised £21,000,000 in the IPO by fraud 15. CW failed to provide police with mobile phone and laptop passwords, when requested, in breach of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act by police contrary to the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. ... I'm really new to this party, seeing as I'm from the States. So yes, while I saw a Hearts match first while on holiday and so that's "my club" now, it's not nearly as engrained in me as it might be for a lot of other supporters who've been going to see their club all their lives. So I guess my question is, are the Rangers fans actually this confident that there's "nothing to see here," or are they just taking the piss? Because as a lawyer, even one versed in American, not Scots, law, this looks like a hell of a lot more than just "buying a car with stolen money." Edited January 5, 2016 by Justin Z 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
williemillersmoustache Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 Are you Justin Zed or Justin Zee? Answer carefully now.. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 I had not appreciated that the trial concerns only how Green and co came up with the £5.5m. Is that what you're saying? Yes. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin Z Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 Are you Justin Zed or Justin Zee? Answer carefully now.. Hahaha! Zee. And the Nissan sports cars are also Zees. I'm out of positive rep or you'd have absolutely gotten one. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 (edited) I'm really new to this party, seeing as I'm from the States. So yes, while I saw a Hearts match first while on holiday and so that's "my club" now, it's not nearly as engrained in me as it might be for a lot of other supporters who've been going to see their club all their lives. So I guess my question is, are the Rangers fans actually this confident that there's "nothing to see here," or are they just taking the piss?Because as a lawyer, even one versed in American, not Scots, law, this looks like a hell of a lot more than just "buying a car with stolen money." Legal beagles are a dime a dozen on this thread. Have you taken silk? Edited January 5, 2016 by The_Kincardine 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henrik's tongue Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 Legal beagles are a dime a dozen on this thread. Have you taken silk? ^^^^^ taken drink. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin Z Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 How in the world could I have taken silk if I'm not even qualified to practice Scots law? I just came right out and said that, if not in absolute terms, in pretty damn obvious ones. That said, I, like most of the rest of the literate universe, can read an indictment with 15 counts on it, several of which have to do f-all with acquiring liquid cash by illegal means. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 Looks like its Bitter o'clock for The_Arsehole again. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 How in the world could I have taken silk if I'm not even qualified to practice Scots law? That's a no then. f**k off back to drafting wills and wishing you could shag Ally McBeal. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 Sir Phil pishing all over the racist 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin Z Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 (edited) That's a no then. f**k off back to drafting wills and wishing you could shag Ally McBeal. Hahahaha, oh man. Well, if nothing else, you've answered my question--you are actually that confident (and there's a fine line between confidence and delusion) that there's nothing else to this entire legal affair. Either that, or you're so nervous about all this, that you've bitten your fingernails down to nubs and it's really sare, isn't it you big grumpmaster. Edited January 5, 2016 by Justin Z 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
williemillersmoustache Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 (edited) How in the world could I have taken silk if I'm not even qualified to practice Scots law? I just came right out and said that, if not in absolute terms, in pretty damn obvious ones. That said, I, like most of the rest of the literate universe, can read an indictment with 15 counts on it, several of which have to do f-all with acquiring liquid cash by illegal means. I really like the look of 12 & 13. Zee is unacceptable btw and with bonhomie like the above, you're very much in the potential alias probation box. Grumpmaster f**k it, I feel the addition of a smug-jambo-yank-shyster can only improve things. Alias or not, welcome, speculate away..... Edited January 5, 2016 by williemillersmoustache 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 The ownership of Rangers isn't on trial here however Perry Mason one wants to get and however-much the P&D dolts would wish otherwise. How about a wager? The outcome of this fraud case will lead directly to a dispute about Rangers' ownership. Who is fool enough to say yes? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 The QC has a competitor..... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 The ownership of Rangers isn't on trial here however Perry Mason one wants to get and however-much the P&D dolts would wish otherwise. How about a wager? The outcome of this fraud case will lead directly to a dispute about Rangers' ownership. Who is fool enough to say yes? The ownership of Rangers is already in dispute. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 The QC has a competitor..... The QC has taken silk 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.