PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

gordondaviesmoustache said:
Just to complicate things further the standard of proof in criminal trials isn’t universally applied as being ‘sure’.

Certain defences, if raised by the defence, require the mental gymnastics of the jury/tribunal of fact applying the balance of probabilities to that particular defence in conjunction with being sure the offence has been made out more widely by the prosecution.

So two standards of proof for one offence.

Any statutory due diligence defence for a regulatory offence, once raised, requires the application of this standard of proof, with the burden of proof resting with the defence, in respect of that defence, once raised by them. The burden of proof for the jury being sure of guilt for the index offence rests with the prosecution.

Hopefully that further clears things up…
Click to expand...
What a load of cunts the legal 'profession' are. Absolutely having us over with their made up bollocks. ;-)
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
Just to complicate things further the standard of proof in criminal trials isn’t universally applied as being ‘sure’.

Certain defences, if raised by the defence, require the mental gymnastics of the jury/tribunal of fact applying the balance of probabilities to that particular defence in conjunction with being sure the offence has been made out more widely by the prosecution.

So two standards of proof for one offence.

Any statutory due diligence defence for a regulatory offence, once raised, requires the application of this standard of proof, with the burden of proof resting with the defence, in respect of that defence, once raised by them. The burden of proof for the jury being sure of guilt for the index offence rests with the prosecution.

Hopefully that further clears things up…
Click to expand...

Yes I agree, that’s what I was going to say.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
Just to complicate things further the standard of proof in criminal trials isn’t universally applied as being ‘sure’.

Certain defences, if raised by the defence, require the mental gymnastics of the jury/tribunal of fact applying the balance of probabilities to that particular defence in conjunction with being sure the offence has been made out more widely by the prosecution.

So two standards of proof for one offence.

Any statutory due diligence defence for a regulatory offence, once raised, requires the application of this standard of proof, with the burden of proof resting with the defence, in respect of that defence, once raised by them. The burden of proof for the jury being sure of guilt for the index offence rests with the prosecution.

Hopefully that further clears things up…
Click to expand...
Our case may or may not be covered in your assessment but in a case of law, the jury doesn't need mental gymnastics. The jury is there to decide if either the defence or the prosecution are lying, nothing else. Punishment, if any, will be decided by the Judge. As I said, our investigation may well be different unless one side or the other is lying. I would think that if we have irrefutable proof of our innocence then we should be in the clear.
 
bigA said:
And a criminal in the witness protection program. Would a whistleblower be given that level of protection? Somehow I don't think so.

Pinto claims that he has received death threats as a result of his actions. If that is the case he must have pissed off some heavy and high powered people along the line somewhere. Yet he won't disclose who the threat was from.

Hopefully someone will catch up with this rat and give him his deserved comeuppance. Don't be surprised if he has an "accident" sometimes in the future.
Click to expand...
If you google Doyen Sports and Kazakhstan you get a good idea of some of the people Pinto upset.
 
WRicko said:
I don’t see what we should be worried about the point being made is the Premier league will have had full access to everything through legal methods more than Pinto same as CAS had.

I also see no reason for Pinto to hold anything till now or later. Coming forward with everything for CAS maybe before or certainly before now would have helped him legally surely ?

The papers don’t seem to have any hint of any new evidence from him or anyone else. Whilst it’s possible the Pannel or a new witness wouldn’t tell the press. Pinto surely would if he had anything.

I would have thought any criminal investigations following his supposed evidence on City to English French German or Portuguese authorities would be known about by now
Click to expand...
The Premier League will only have access to Manchester City's official emails and documents. For example, Simon Pearce used his Executive Affairs Authority (EAA) email address in communications related to the club's financial matters. There is no way the Premier League would be granted access to emails from the UAE Executive Affairs Authority. Rui Pinto, on the other hand, might have had access to such communications.

Pinto's lawyer believed they had presented enough evidence against City. He mentioned that they were shocked when they heard the CAS verdict. I also think that holding onto a hard drive or two serves as a good life insurance.

I have no idea, but it has been confirmed by the French anti-corruption agency that the data has been shared with Germany, Belgium, and other countries.
 
slbsn said:
Players can't even keep a line up secret...

No player knows the outcome of the hearing. Nobody does. Even if someone knew, they would only know the verdict on liability and not on sanction because they haven't even had that bit of the hearing.

Every soft signal is positive - another clean audit published 4 months before the deadline with no red flags, huge non-essential infrastructure investment, repeated executive confidence, Silver Lake further investment, no board resignations etc.

The team have collapsed on the pitch for football reasons.
Click to expand...
Nobody apart from the pudding in the Suppprters club, of course...
 
bobbyowenquiff said:
Pinto is already a convicted criminal. The prosecution case was proven in his first trial. The court rejected his claims to be a whistleblower and the evidence was overwhelming. He demanded money from Doyen Sports agency not to relase information he had hacked. The next trial involves more extortion charges. None of these cases relate to City. He has not a cat in hell's chance of convincing any court he is a whistleblower. He had money in Swiss bank accounts he had taken from other organisations. There is no evidence he has more material from City other than that already publshed by Der Spiegl.
Click to expand...
Pinto got away with murder as he was only convicted on 9 out of 90 charges. Some very powerful people in Portugal want him hanged, and the upcoming trial involving the Benfica charges is a nightmare for him. He will do anything he can to try to obtain whistleblower status. I think it’s safe to assume that if he has more information on City, he will share it with the Premier League. Someday we might know. Now, let's forget about Pinto and open a bottle of Vino tinto.
 
york away to this! said:
I was out last night at a "do".
One of the lads who's very well connected to a bloke he sometimes sees in the pub said that the rumour of 40 points is bollocks.
Closer to 30, his contact told him.
Click to expand...
BREAKING: Man on football forum knows a lad who knows a bloke who sometimes sees another bloke in the pub who heard a rumour that City are being docked 30 points.
 
Keith Moon said:
The Premier League will only have access to Manchester City's official emails and documents. For example, Simon Pearce used his Executive Affairs Authority (EAA) email address in communications related to the club's financial matters. There is no way the Premier League would be granted access to emails from the UAE Executive Affairs Authority. Rui Pinto, on the other hand, might have had access to such communications.

Pinto's lawyer believed they had presented enough evidence against City. He mentioned that they were shocked when they heard the CAS verdict. I also think that holding onto a hard drive or two serves as a good life insurance.

I have no idea, but it has been confirmed by the French anti-corruption agency that the data has been shared with Germany, Belgium, and other countries.
Click to expand...
First off I would be amazed if he could hack the UAE Executive Affairs.

Second he wouldn’t use his UAE Executive Affairs email unless he was doing something wrong and expecting to be caught.

Pinto thought he had evidence yet it turned out to be nothing at CAS.

Info has been passed to authorities yet nothing has happened so it wasn’t anything.

Finally you’re saying he is holding stuff back as life insurance leaving aside the accusation that he would be got rid of by the sheik.

Carnt have it both ways he has passed everything on to authorities we screwed and he is holding something back

If he is holding it back as insurance then we don’t need to worry do we as he will keep hold of it.

I go back to my point he would have passed it on by now and we would know if it was anything.

To me your post reads either not very incoherent a rag or conspiracy theorist
 
Last edited:
WRicko said:
First off I would be amazed if he could hack the UAE Executive Affairs.

Second he wouldn’t use his UAE Executive Affairs email unless he was doing something wrong and expecting to be caught.

Pinto thought he had evidence yet it turned out to be nothing at CAS.

Info has been passed to authorities yet nothing has happened so it wasn’t anything.

Finally you’re saying he is holding stuff back as life insurance leaving aside the accusation that he would be got rid of by the sheik.

Carnt have it both ways he has passed everything on to authorities we screwed and he is holding something back

If he is holding it back as insurance then we don’t need to worry do we as he will keep hold of it.

I go back to my point he would have passed it on by now and we would know if it was anything.

To me your post reads either not very coherent a rag or conspiracy theorist
Click to expand...
Lock the **** up.

Whistleblower my arse.

He is a two bit criminal and deserves a good kicking.

 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
Just to complicate things further the standard of proof in criminal trials isn’t universally applied as being ‘sure’.

Certain defences, if raised by the defence, require the mental gymnastics of the jury/tribunal of fact applying the balance of probabilities to that particular defence in conjunction with being sure the offence has been made out more widely by the prosecution.

So two standards of proof for one offence.

Any statutory due diligence defence for a regulatory offence, once raised, requires the application of this standard of proof, with the burden of proof resting with the defence, in respect of that defence, once raised by them. The burden of proof for the jury being sure of guilt for the index offence rests with the prosecution.

Hopefully that further clears things up…
Click to expand...
Been a while since I’ve mustered an arousal from the forum
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top