PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Kinkys Left Foot said:
As the SFO is a publicly funded operation, they subject to Freedom of Information requests from the general public
Anyone want to make such a request if they had received a referral to investigate the City fraud allegations?

Stages of a case​

Intelligence gathering or “pre-investigation” stage

The SFO receives information on possible criminal activity from a variety of sources, including whistleblowers, victims, other law enforcement agencies, the media, corporations themselves (“self reports”), and those in competition with them. This information is analysed and the potential for the alleged activity to become the subject of a criminal investigation is assessed by our Intelligence Unit, a team of intelligence operatives, lawyers, accredited financial intelligence officers, analysts and investigators.

The Intelligence Unit also undertakes its own research and proactively develops information. The unit has unique pre-investigation powers available under Section 2A of the Criminal Justice Act 1987 that are used to help determine whether to commence an investigation where it appears bribery and corruption may have taken place.

The Director can accept a case for criminal investigation if, in his judgment, it meets his Statement of Principle and if he considers there are reasonable grounds to suspect serious or complex fraud.

Investigation and prosecution

Once a case is accepted by the Director, investigators and lawyers work together from the start. This way of working is known in the UK as the Roskill model and is an exception to the normal practice in this country, in which crime is generally investigated by a police force and the evidence passed to the CPS to decide whether to prosecute. The SFO was set up differently because our cases need strong cooperation and management from both lawyers and investigators all the way through, to make sure that the lines of investigation are the best ones to uncover criminal activity, and eventually prove it in court.

Deferred Prosecution Agreements

If the investigation results in enough evidence to a support a realistic prospect of conviction, and if a prosecution is considered to be in the public interest, charges will be normally be brought. Alternatively the Director of the SFO may consider inviting a company to enter negotiations for a Deferred Prosecution Agreement. The SFO’s first DPA was with Standard Bank in 2015. Subsequent DPAs were agreed with Sarclad Ltd in 2016 and with Rolls-Royce and Tesco in 2017. In 2019, DPAs were agreed with Serco Geografix Ltd and Güralp Systems Ltd. In 2020, a DPAs were agreed with Airbus SE, G4S Care & Justice Services (UK) Ltd and Airline Services Ltd. In 2021, a DPA was agreed with Amec Foster Wheeler Energy Limited and with two companies for Bribery Act offences.

Trial

If we decide to prosecute the alleged criminals, there will often be a court trial.


How to make a Freedom of Information request​

1. Read about the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act and how to make a request.

2. Check to see whether the information you would like to request is already available. The SFO already publishes information relating to its:

3. Consider whether the information you would like to request is a matter of court record, which would mean the SFO cannot release it in response to an FOI request. You may instead wish to apply directly to the relevant court to request such information, details of which are available here.

4. Make a new request by contacting us on: information.officer@sfo.gov.uk
Click to expand...
Under section 30 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 investigations and proceedings by public authorities are exempt from FOI requests.

​

 
slbsn said:
Not really. If you wanted to you could say they didn’t feel they needed any further time on the key witnesses because they got what they wanted. I just don’t think you can read anything into it based on that rumour
Click to expand...
Yep. We had a rumour that it was going to take six weeks, then a rumour it was going to take ten weeks and now we have a rumour that it isn't going to take the rumoured ten weeks. Basically, we still know nothing.

And even if we believe the latest rumour because of the source, we have no idea what it means although, of course, we all want it to be good news.
 
halfcenturyup said:
Yep. We had a rumour that it was going to take six weeks, then a rumour it was going to take ten weeks and now we have a rumour that it isn't going to take the rumoured ten weeks. Basically, we still know nothing.

And even if we believe the latest rumour because of the source, we have no idea what it means although, of course, we all want it to be good news.
Click to expand...
I’ve previously questioned the provenance of this ten week time limit, which seemed long to me. Six weeks seems about right fwiw.
 
halfcenturyup said:
Yep. We had a rumour that it was going to take six weeks, then a rumour it was going to take ten weeks and now we have a rumour that it isn't going to take the rumoured ten weeks. Basically, we still know nothing.

And even if we believe the latest rumour because of the source, we have no idea what it means although, of course, we all want it to be good news.
Click to expand...
I think if it was going really well for the Premier League then they would be leaking information about the case like a sieve.
 
Here’s hoping it does finish early so that Lord Pannick can get back to demanding maximum compensation for our other case!!
 
The perfect fumble said:
I'll tell you what I think it means.

We've won.

Why?

Coz if the Premier League has nailed our bollocks to the floor in record time, we'd go down swinging, using every second and all means possible to prove our innocence, no way would we agree to throw in the towel early. Besides, when the judgement comes in it'll be close to six years since the investigation began, they've not managed to nail us in six years! I doubt they've been able to suddenly do it in six weeks.

Why?

Because, as those who know the ins and outs of this case have stated on numerous occasions, in the absence of a smoking gun, and there's never been any indication the Premier League has such a thing. It was always going to be immensely difficult and time consuming for the Premier League to prove fraud on this scale, over such a long period, involving so many people. I would argue that a lengthy "trial" would be a prerequisite for the Premier League to win such a complex case

Complex cases take time, "trials" cut short for want of evidence do not, and has been stated many times, this "trial is a house of cards, if fraud cannot be proven once, it cannot be proven for a whole chunk of the 115, and given the fact that the Mancini and Yaya nonsense is clearly small potato bollocks, this shit show always had the potential to collapse quickly if the Premier League had fuck all.

I'm not a lawyer so this is just my opinion, and I'm assuming we have leverage with the independent commission to demand time to slug it out to the final round if needs must. But if we do have such leverage, Khaldoon doesn't seem minded to call it a day early if we're on the ropes, he'd only do that if our opponent was out for the count.
Click to expand...

Agreed. In my non-lawyer opinion if the PL had a financial paper trail proving that the ‘sponsorships’ were a vehicle for funnelling owner funds into the club, then City would have pleaded out this case and done a deal before it even got to the charging stage. If the PL refused to allow a ‘deal’ then the charges would have been targeted on the financial paper trail the PL had as its evidence and not this ‘115 fishing trip.’

It’s a dog and pony show.
 
Week one
PL: you murdered that man
MCFC: He's still alive

Week two
PL: you murdered that man
MCFC: He's still alive

Week three
PL: you murdered that man
MCFC: He's still alive

Week four
PL: you murdered that man
MCFC: He's still alive

Week five
PL: you murdered that man...well Liverpool's owners think you did it...
MCFC: but he's not dead....
KC ROSEN: FFS Ricky, you can polish a turd, but this is bullshit. I am going to have a word with Obscene Wenger.

Week six
Real Tolmie Hairdoo on Twitter: the case is not going the full ten weeks.
 
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
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.