projectriver
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 30 May 2007
- Messages
- 1,326
On these allegations, in my view, even that level of "whistleblower" evidence wouldn't suffice.Yes, I think so. Take the Etihad sponsorship issue. Our accounts say “Etihad sponsored us £X.” The auditors look at the contract, tick that box, look at the bank statements, see £X coming in to City’s bank accounts from Etihad, tick that box and move on to the next bit.
Meanwhile, in a different accountant’s office, Etihad’s accounts say “We sponsored City £X.” Their auditors look at the contract , tick that box, look at the bank statements, see £X going from Etihad to MCFC, tick that box and move on to the next bit.
Given that our accounts mirror Etihad’s in this respect I don’t see how you can establish fraud without some actual direct, first hand evidence that the payment from Etihad to MCFC was actually disguised owner investment rather than what it appears to be on the face of the documents. Someone who says, in effect, “I know what the accounts say but I was in the meeting where the question for discussion was how we camouflage ADUG putting £X into MCFC without UEFA getting wind of it, and that’s what we actually did. I know because I was there.”
Maybe they have that evidence. But I don’t see how a paper trail alone can possibly get them there. Which, as I understand it, is all they have.
Bottom line in a case like this is that the PL has to establish a proven, technical and factual conclusion that the original accounting was actually wrong (either deliberately or by negligence).
This can probably only be achieved in this case by an expert witness being more convincing than the defence expert witness having taken account of the written audited accounts and supporting docs that historically exist, factual witnesses and non-audit documents/evidence.
So, I'd say you'd need at least one witness of fact who supports the case with first hand experience of the matters in question actually being executed (not merely discussed or considered) and who would be potentially self-incriminating themselves in admitting their professional involvement in those matters. All pretty unlikely.
You'd also need documentary evidence of the execution of that scheme AND, therefore (or otherwise) a conclusion by the tribunal that defence witnesses were lying or unreliable and had, in some way and to the extent that they had been involved in the audit, misled the auditors. This doesn't seem to be a case where the judgment could fudge that issue by saying they had "faulty recollections". Some of the matters are not that old.
So whilst this sort of conclusion has occurred in some rare cases it feels a very high hurdle for the PL even on a balance of probabilities standard. All of this assumes the process in place is fair and in line with English law which I do expect it to be.