PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules
- Thread starter ayrshire_blue
- Start date
cheekybids
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 10,164
When we are cleared & it becomes apparent that the execs of Rags & Dippers asked potential CEOs about City & the possibility of laying charges against City, would this be considered corruption?
What actions could be taken?
(I’ll accept any sentence with nuclear)
What actions could be taken?
(I’ll accept any sentence with nuclear)
burning blue soul
Well-Known Member
4000 pages in and her name hasn't been mentioned, so far.
So I think, on current evidence in the public domain, Emma is not involved in these shenanigans.
halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 11,584
OK. I couldn't resist. You trouble-maker.
No.
And I don't think the PL think so, either.
And if there was something that, under a strict legal defintion, could be considered fraudulent, it wouldn't affect the true and fair view given by the accounts anyway and so the most serious breaches fall away and we are left with some issues of how the numbers were presented to the PL.
Now I'll shut up again :)
Last edited:
Choices.
Ok now I'm confused. Surely any limitation, if it applies, is defined in some way. I.e it is not any 6 years at any point, it is 6 years back from the start of any investigation. Isn't that the whole point, of limiting something back the way. It makes no sense to give a 6 year limitation ahead to an investigation starting, that's not a limitation of any kind really.
edit, there is quite a bit of subsequent discussion on this which may make any response moot.
Last edited:
gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
It is defined in some way, namely under section 32 of the Limitation Act 1980, which states that the period of limitation shall not begin to run until discovery of the fraud [by the PL], or [when the PL] could with reasonable diligence have discovered it.
In which case domalino's point is right, Der Spiegel articles 'could' be argued as the start of the limitation. As could the start of the PL investigation. But the one thing that doesn't make sense is it being 6 years for them to carry out their investigation, with no limitations of what is actually being investigated.
Unless I have completely misunderstood the act. Or river's post.
gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
Well of course it depends what trigger event(s) the PL are relying upon . Many have inferred it relates to the stuff associated with the Der Spiegel articles but that is a conclusion that is not assisted by the lack of meaningful particulars (or evidence) in the public domain relating to the charges.
So based on the current position about lack of particulars it’s pretty much impossible to evaluate when the limitation period begins and ends - and given the reasonable diligence arm of section 32 (notably distinguished from ‘all due diligence’) then there may be further arguments around limitation relating to that, possibly depending on what period the particular charge(s) relates to.