Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
I'm saying that there's a difference between doing something because you genuinely think it's OK, based on proper professional advice, and doing something you know is deceitful and illegal.
Based on the evidence provided at CAS, we know that ADUG did not fund the Etihad contract and therefore, on the basis of that evidence we believe the charges under that heading are likely to fail. But the PL's lawyers could potentially have uncovered details of a conspiracy to spin the story of the central funding as a knowing lie. I doubt it, but it's a possibility.
Financially, the Fordham and Mancini allegations aren't that significant but it's the motivation for those that's potentially important. Again, I very much doubt there was any overt, malign intent to deceive in either of those, but if there was that would have a wider impact that just the figures.
I've just found out that an ex-boss of mine died last year. He ran the insurance company I worked for and when it collapsed he was convicted of fraud and went to prison for 7 years. Insurance company premiums are their main revenue and claims are their main expenses. If you pay out less in claims than the revenue you bring in, you make a profit (and vice versa of course). Claims can take many years to finalise though, so they have to be carefully managed, and reserves put aside to cover potential liabilities that may arise. Those reserves are audited and professionally assessed by actuarial experts.
We'd written some bad business over a couple of years however, and losses started to become apparent on that business. Rather than admit those, which would have spoiled the good reputation the company had built, they were hidden by not putting new claims on the system. There is a legitimate reason for not putting them on the system short-term, because you might not be clear on what the potential liability is. Bujt once you have a figure, they need to go on the system, be visible, and reserves adjusted accordingly. Bujt they were witholding them even when the potential liability was established, which meant the company appeared to be more profitable than it actually was.
The point I'm trying to illustrate is that you could be questioned on not entering claims but you coulld say you had a legitimate reason not to, citing the difficulty of establishing a potential figure for liability. If you could show a pattern of doing that but only over a short term, then that might be judged as reasonable. But if you keep claims off the system for a longer time, even when liability is established, and there's a paper trail showing that you did this deliberatley and knowingly, then you'll be in trouble, as three of the directors were.
Last edited:
