PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

ancoats said:
After my wobble last night, I would like to apologise if some on here thought it was over the top and heavy
I am having the rest from it all and stepping back from posting and I will log out.

So first I would like to wish everybody a Happy Christmas and a great New Year.

Plus, this site is a wonderful place to be part of, and the best people on earth all wanting the same things for Manchester City football club.

I will be back at some point and I will still be keeping an eye on you lot because its the best fucking site in the world

Ancoats
Click to expand...
I know how you feel Ste, it all gets on top at some point. All the best mate, have a good one.
 
slbsn said:
That case is neither the leading authority or says what you say it says. In fact, as I previously explained it says the opposite - that the case will be decided on a BoP but with a requirement for cogent evidence but not anything like a criminal standard.

As I previously mentioned, it’s explained here:

open.substack.com

Conspiracy Theories and Innuendo will not prove the alleged Manchester City Conspiracy

There will be no Super Sub for cogent evidence
open.substack.com open.substack.com
Click to expand...

Thanks for the link, hadn’t seen previously, it’s very clear and concise.

My understanding will have come from my insurance diploma study books, namely the MO5 ( Insurance Law and Contract Law) or M85 (Claims). Are you saying by ‘cogent evidence’, establishing fraud in a civil court is likely to be higher than for other types of civil action but not as high as that relating to criminal matters?
 
Last edited:
kinkladze10 said:
Thanks for the link, I hadn’t seen that before. Will have a proper read at home and digest fully.

In essence, what I meant was the threshold in a civil court for fraud is higher than bop. My understanding is that is more aligned with a criminal standard for fraud to be proven. I work in insurance and this will have come from a textbook when studying for my diploma (still partway through). Text book will namely be the M05 (insurance law) or M85 (claims practice). Might dig my text books out and check (will be after Christmas though :-) ) I certainly wouldn’t have just made it up unless I’ve interpreted or read it wrong.

By cogent evidence, are you suggesting that for fraud to be proven in a civil court, it’s not quite Bop because a higher standard of evidence is required? Just curious because if it’s not


Thanks for the link, hadn’t seen previously, it’s very clear and concise.

My understanding will have come from my insurance diploma study books, namely the MO5 ( Insurance Law and Contract Law) or M85 (Claims). Are you saying by ‘cogent evidence’, establishing fraud in a civil court is likely to be higher than for other types of civil action but not as high as that relating to criminal matters?
Click to expand...
The threshold is not higher and not aligned with criminal law. It is BoP but the evidence must be cogent in essence to overcome the inherently improbability that professionals would commit such discreditable acts. While dishonesty is inherently more improbable than an innocent explanation, cogent and compelling evidence of dishonesty can and will shift this balance. But it is certainly not a criminal standard so make sure you re read that text book.
 
Keith Moon said:
This makes me worried, though—the entire case is based on Pinto’s information. If a verdict against City could grant him whistleblower status and help him avoid 6–7 years in prison, they must have gone through every kilobit to find new evidence. This is what Pinto and his lawyer said earlier this year:

“These documents are from part of the Premier League investigation into City. I have now handed five hard drives to French and German authorities with millions of documents, including more on City and I have described what is on each.

“I am confident they will find criminal relevancy.”

-Rui Pinto

“We have been approached by investigators to share information regarding Manchester City that has not been released before,” a member of Pinto’s legal team said.

“We haven’t released the information yet but we have a massive file of Manchester City-related documents that has yet to be released.

“The files will be published at some point, we cannot say when but we will do it.”
Click to expand...

Don't people like these usually meet an accident?
 
Keith Moon said:
This makes me worried, though—the entire case is based on Pinto’s information. If a verdict against City could grant him whistleblower status and help him avoid 6–7 years in prison, they must have gone through every kilobit to find new evidence. This is what Pinto and his lawyer said earlier this year:

“These documents are from part of the Premier League investigation into City. I have now handed five hard drives to French and German authorities with millions of documents, including more on City and I have described what is on each.

“I am confident they will find criminal relevancy.”

-Rui Pinto

“We have been approached by investigators to share information regarding Manchester City that has not been released before,” a member of Pinto’s legal team said.

“We haven’t released the information yet but we have a massive file of Manchester City-related documents that has yet to be released.

“The files will be published at some point, we cannot say when but we will do it.”
Click to expand...
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
 
halfcenturyup said:
Does that really say the standard of proof in a civil case involving fraud is more aligned to the criminal standard, or is it just saying the standard is balance of probabilities but in view of the serious of the charges the cogency of the evidence required elevates the standard?

Which is what we have been saying in our case?

In the circumstances of the case quoted, this meant a standard not far short of the criminal standard. In our case, it may be less than that, or, much less likely, more?
Click to expand...

My initial response to you was in relation to your post which said it’s a low bar balance of probabilities not prove without any doubt. All I’m trying to say is the threshold for proving fraud in a civil court is higher than other types of civil action. Perhaps I should have said close to the criminal standard rather than aligned.
 
slbsn said:
The threshold is not higher and not aligned with criminal law. It is BoP but the evidence must be cogent in essence to overcome the inherently improbability that professionals would commit such discreditable acts. While dishonesty is inherently more improbable than an innocent explanation, cogent and compelling evidence of dishonesty can and will shift this balance. But it is certainly not a criminal standard so make sure you re read that text book.
Click to expand...
I have read the text book again, just now and it says that establishing fraud is higher than for other types of civil action but not as high relating to criminal matters, but close to the criminal standard. :-)
 
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.