Rangers administrators to get a public apology soon

BlooBlood

Well-Known Member
We’ll never know for sure, the cover-up is almost complete with these payments and no sign of a public enquiry. But, I suspect most of us believe that a successful prosecution would have been seen as some sort of vindication for Rangers fans and our sense of deep deep injustice at the rape of our Club. Convictions would have meant we were, in fact and in law, the victims of a crime.

As it is now, we have that same sense of injustice but the Rangers family can still be portrayed as the collective villains of the whole sorry episode. “Yous didnae pure pay the face painter”.

In this case, for “malicious” read either “incompetent” or “sabotaged”. Which one you view it as depends on your points of view. Personally, I believe the latter.
This still doesn’t make sense mate. Why would Rangers haters (i.e the SNP and Frank Mulholland) want to prosecute the administrators to vindicate Rangers fans?

I think @RfcIbrox is on to something at post 46. Was it some sort of malicious way of showing the administration as being conducted illegally so should be undone and the club broken up with the stadium and training ground sold over for a lot more than £5m. If that’s the case it means the administrators have actually saved us, but I refuse to believe that because they sold us to fûcking spivs.

It just doesn’t make any sense.
 

mummymonkey

Well-Known Member
This still doesn’t make sense mate. Why would Rangers haters (i.e the SNP and Frank Mulholland) want to prosecute the administrators to vindicate Rangers fans?

I think @RfcIbrox is on to something at post 46. Was it some sort of malicious way of showing the administration as being conducted illegally so should be undone and the club broken up with the stadium and training ground sold over for a lot more than £5m. If that’s the case it means the administrators have actually saved us, but I refuse to believe that because they sold us to fûcking spivs.

It just doesn’t make any sense.

Exactly. As I posted back on page 1 - If the prosecution was malicious, then from where did the malice come? And why?
 

scobie1873

Well-Known Member
Should be a public inquiry into what happened to us, and the investigation f-ck up.
With the millions of pounds that’s getting ‘awarded’ to these crooks there’s got to be.
Absolutely reeks.
 

mart22

Well-Known Member
What don’t I seem to understand?

Whyte was an absolute rat. He went to court for the right to appoint his own Administrators and it all went wrong for there on in.

not one of these rats did anything to help us,
I didn't give my view of Whyte, or anyone else. I gave a reason to another poster why Whyte would want to appoint his own administrators.
I've no idea why D&P did not sell Ibrox and the training ground as individual assets. I strongly suspect an HMRC appointed administrator wouldn't have hesitated. Either way the fact the club was bought with Ibrox, the training ground, car park etc helped us hugely. That's just a fact.
 

mart22

Well-Known Member
Exactly. As I posted back on page 1 - If the prosecution was malicious, then from where did the malice come? And why?
Maybe it was all to do with timing. The independence referendum was approaching. By wiping Rangers off the face of the earth the last British institution in Scotland no longer presented problems. If it could be done by presenting Rangers as villainous crooks then all the better. These Rangers hating scumbags were probably stupid enough to think they could turn Rangers supporters against their own club, and Britain. More fool them.
 

LJ50

Well-Known Member
This still doesn’t make sense mate. Why would Rangers haters (i.e the SNP and Frank Mulholland) want to prosecute the administrators to vindicate Rangers fans?

I think @RfcIbrox is on to something at post 46. Was it some sort of malicious way of showing the administration as being conducted illegally so should be undone and the club broken up with the stadium and training ground sold over for a lot more than £5m. If that’s the case it means the administrators have actually saved us, but I refuse to believe that because they sold us to fûcking spivs.

It just doesn’t make any sense.
That's exactly my point. By bungling the prosecution, they have entirely removed the ability for us to be vindicated through this route. There was such a stench about the whole thing that ignoring it was impossible. Pursuing it less than competently has resulted in the worst possible outcome for us. Our name dragged further through the mud, but no-one held to account for the corporate rape.
 

Kirbybear

Well-Known Member
A national disgrace of biblical proportions. Scandalous behaviour from the prosecutors, the administrators and the Scottish legal system as a whole.

Should never ever have happened, we all know that little cunt Whyte was a patsy, and we all know the administrators were strategically placed to rinse as much money as possible out of the club.

One day, one day there will be heads rolling and the real truth will come out and these absolute scum bastards will be exposed for the trash that they really are.

Utterly infuriating to read this 9 years later.

I so hope you are correct - and that I live long enough to see it happen.
But the whole thing is just such a mess that I seriously doubt if the full factual and accurate story will ever be known.
 

LJ50

Well-Known Member
I didn't give my view of Whyte, or anyone else. I gave a reason to another poster why Whyte would want to appoint his own administrators.
I've no idea why D&P did not sell Ibrox and the training ground as individual assets. I strongly suspect an HMRC appointed administrator wouldn't have hesitated. Either way the fact the club was bought with Ibrox, the training ground, car park etc helped us hugely. That's just a fact.
I think the expense involved in disposing of those assets, and the fact that they would be worth a lot purely less as land (and let's be honest, in the case of Ibrox a listed building in a less than affluent area limits its value for housing, etc.) than they are to the Club meant that the best outcome for creditors was realising the proceeds of a sale of the entireity of the assets together.
 

RfcIbrox

Well-Known Member
The finger of suspicion points firmly at Mulholland bias being the only explanation. Salmond was FM at the time and I’m sure Kenny MacAskill was justice. I don’t think either of them had an axe to grind with Rangers.

 

mart22

Well-Known Member
I think the expense involved in disposing of those assets, and the fact that they would be worth a lot purely less as land (and let's be honest, in the case of Ibrox a listed building in a less than affluent area limits its value for housing, etc.) than they are to the Club meant that the best outcome for creditors was realising the proceeds of a sale of the entireity of the assets together.
I tend to agree with you. That's probably what D&P will show defending themselves in court. However, what I'm getting at is an HMRC appointed administrator would have been working to another agenda. A Rangers hating agenda that would have been about making it nigh impossible for us to start over.
 

RfcIbrox

Well-Known Member
The fact we are now out of the woods on the park and off it might be in Rangers interest to let this lie rather than dig up dodgy ownership deals. We were shafted by hmrc, administrators, senior UK politician (Dr Death), dodgy owners, dodgy boards, media including bbc and ashley. Looks like the justiciary were trying to get a boot in too.

The fact we are so close to another title is nothing short of miraculous and due largely to a small number of men who are now Rangers Greats - principally DK.
 

RfcIbrox

Well-Known Member
I tend to agree with you. That's probably what D&P will show defending themselves in court. However, what I'm getting at is an HMRC appointed administrator would have been working to another agenda. A Rangers hating agenda that would have been about making it nigh impossible for us to start over.
Absolutely. It seems perverse but keeping the club in tact with its main assets through D&P even if it exposed those assets to the greed of whyte was critical in our survival. The main question there is obviously why it wasn’t sold to the 3 Bears but BDO wouldn’t have thought twice about selling off those key assets.
 

IbroxForever

Well-Known Member
Reading through this thread really blows my mind. Some of our fans still saying why did they not just sell to x,y or z. Why did this not happen and so on.

It happened the way it did because they went after us because they hate us, nothing that happened was by accident or unlucky. They planned this for years and used like minded people from politics, sfa, police and pf.

They made 1 huge mistake, they did not think we would fight to get the club back. Thats what makes this season so sweet.
 

High Society

Well-Known Member
I didn't give my view of Whyte, or anyone else. I gave a reason to another poster why Whyte would want to appoint his own administrators.
I've no idea why D&P did not sell Ibrox and the training ground as individual assets. I strongly suspect an HMRC appointed administrator wouldn't have hesitated. Either way the fact the club was bought with Ibrox, the training ground, car park etc helped us hugely. That's just a fact.
Ok just to be clear, what is your view of Whyte?
 

Nacho Novo

Well-Known Member
Rangers aren't financially strong enough just yet, but once Rangers have 55 lifted back at Ibrox and the Champions League money comes in next season, we should be going after everyone who ever wronged us.

In my opinion there could be some serious matters to deal with regarding Whyte, Green, administrators, HMRC, Royal Bank of Scotland etc. They thought they could finish us off at our weakest, like Rangers to take them on when we are at our strongest. We could be owed millions in compensation.
 

LetsGo

Well-Known Member
Rangers aren't financially strong enough just yet, but once Rangers have 55 lifted back at Ibrox and the Champions League money comes in next season, we should be going after everyone who ever wronged us.

In my opinion there could be some serious matters to deal with regarding Whyte, Green, administrators, HMRC, Royal Bank of Scotland etc. They thought they could finish us off at our weakest, like Rangers to take them on when we are at our strongest. We could be owed millions in compensation.
Not wanting to piss on your parade but everyone on that list except Green has damaged the oldco and has had nothing to do with the newco. Oldco litigation is now the business of the liquidators - not the current company - to chase compensation and in some cases they have - for example HMRC debt has been substantially reduced. Bearing in mind this is mostly >10 years ago, in the time of the pandemic, it would take ages cost an utter fortune and risks losses of legal fees if findings go against us in the civil court, so it is hardly worth it. We've moved on, and this episode has to be consigned to history.
 

Haining84

Well-Known Member
Baffled some people are attempting to defend D&P’s.

They continually moved the goal posts when dealing with Paul Murray,Brian Kennedy and the blue knights.

Hired Mediahouse aka toxic jack.(why would administrators need a spin doctor)!

Sold the club to Green/Ahmad/Zeus capital even though there was a better NewCo sale offer on the table from the Walter/Park/McColl consortium.

David Grier who was involved in the background was part of Whyte’s takeover team.

Let’s also not forget Green & Ahmed just seemed to appeared from nowhere after constant delays from D&P’s too.

The whole administration process did and still does stink to the high heavens.
 

El Bufalo

Well-Known Member
Can't even bring myself to read anything about these two, Whyte, Green, Ahmad, etc. A shower of fucking crooks.
 

Northhiglander

Well-Known Member
If Duff and Phelps broke the law or not isn’t the question here. Two separate issues. What this is about is why the Crown set out to in their own words “nail these bastards”.

The power of the crown was applied to destroy these two citizens. Without gathering any evidence that was worthy of a trial.

When the word malicious is used in this context it is a serious situation. Means our legal system is being used to persecute individuals someone doesn’t like irrespective of the facts.

That absolutely should be the focus of our anger. Not the individuals. This is serious shit.
 

Marty101

Well-Known Member
Seems to have been a prosecution based on internet rumours rather than evidence. It doesn’t look like they even had sufficient evidence to arrest them from the noises now coming from the Crown.

I don’t do criminal work these days, but I did a few cases when I started out. Years ago I dealt with a fraud case (nothing like as complex or important as the Rangers one, obviously.) I remember the reporting officer telling me that where a fraudster in an organisation is caught the first thing they do is claim everyone else was at it too, and there was some wider conspiracy at play. They do that to obscure and complicate the case.

I think Whyte was probably delighted at dragging so many people into the case with him. I think he and his lawyer were probably the only ones who should have faced charges - and if the case had been progressed in that way maybe the outcome would have been different.
 

LJ50

Well-Known Member
If Duff and Phelps broke the law or not isn’t the question here. Two separate issues. What this is about is why the Crown set out to in their own words “nail these bastards”.

The power of the crown was applied to destroy these two citizens. Without gathering any evidence that was worthy of a trial.

When the word malicious is used in this context it is a serious situation. Means our legal system is being used to persecute individuals someone doesn’t like irrespective of the facts.

That absolutely should be the focus of our anger. Not the individuals. This is serious shit.
I would just counsel people not to put too much weight on the everyday definition of “malicious“ here. A malicious prosecution in law means one “without reasonable cause”, based on the evidence available to the courts.

It may be, or it may not, that because evidential rules were breached by Police Scotland (either deliberately, or as a result of genuine incompetence) the courts were never able to consider some evidence that may still not have been enough to successfully convict but would have been sufficient to show that there was reasonable grounds to pursue a conviction.

Of course, all of this is just speculation. The cost to the tax payer of those whole debacle - in lost revenue, the costs as well as the compensation - will run comfortably to over £50m. But there will never, ever be an independent public inquiry IMO. It is in far too many people’s interests to hush the whole thing up from now.
 

Northhiglander

Well-Known Member
I would just counsel people not to put too much weight on the everyday definition of “malicious“ here. A malicious prosecution in law means one “without reasonable cause”, based on the evidence available to the courts.

It may be, or it may not, that because evidential rules were breached by Police Scotland (either deliberately, or as a result of genuine incompetence) the courts were never able to consider some evidence that may still not have been enough to successfully convict but would have been sufficient to show that there was reasonable grounds to pursue a conviction.

Of course, all of this is just speculation. The cost to the tax payer of those whole debacle - in lost revenue, the costs as well as the compensation - will run comfortably to over £50m. But there will never, ever be an independent public inquiry IMO. It is in far too many people’s interests to hush the whole thing up from now.
If the state starts prosecuting people without reasonable cause that is a slippery slope to something resembling Russia. Who is the directing mind behind that prosecution, what are the pressures and where did they come form to make that happen.

If this can be done to two individuals adminsitring a legal process overseen by the courts, what is next? Someone who has political views that aren't acceptable to someone else? Where does this stop?

When you add in the Salmond bit this looks like political interference in the running of the justice system. This should concern everyone in Scotland. But it wont. even those on here that aren't nats are more bothered about proving the allegations and miss the wider and much more important point.
 

Marty101

Well-Known Member
I would just counsel people not to put too much weight on the everyday definition of “malicious“ here. A malicious prosecution in law means one “without reasonable cause”, based on the evidence available to the courts.

It may be, or it may not, that because evidential rules were breached by Police Scotland (either deliberately, or as a result of genuine incompetence) the courts were never able to consider some evidence that may still not have been enough to successfully convict but would have been sufficient to show that there was reasonable grounds to pursue a conviction.

Of course, all of this is just speculation. The cost to the tax payer of those whole debacle - in lost revenue, the costs as well as the compensation - will run comfortably to over £50m. But there will never, ever be an independent public inquiry IMO. It is in far too many people’s interests to hush the whole thing up from now.

From Grier's (failed) summary decree case, lack of probable cause isn't enough to make out a claim for malicious prosecution. There needs in addition to be an element of malice/bad-faith - although perhaps that may be inferred by battering on with the case well beyond where it is quite clear that there is no evidence to support it, I suppose.

That's really one of the grounds of the Crown's defence in Grier's case and why it is going to proof, I think - there may ultimately not have been the evidence to support this case, but we were acting in good faith when we brought it so there can't be a claim.

So for the other D&P two, there has been an acceptance that someone was acting in bad-faith at least to some degree, as there has been an admission of liability. We shouldn't under-estimate quite how difficult it is to bring a claim of malicious prosecution successfully - the Crown have to do something pretty bad before it can be a runner.

(In Grier's case, one of the arguments that there was bad faith is that the Crown failed to disclose evidence which was exculpatory of him to his defence team. The prime example is what was called the "Don't tell David" email. This was an email from Whyte to another party in which what was going on with Ticketus was disclosed. The email included instructions from Whyte to the other party not to pass the information about Ticketus on to Grier.)
 

imvaison

Well-Known Member
I bow to the posters who are clear sighted enough to explain how the legal mechanism may have failed in their duty to properly present a case or even open a case without sufficient hard evidence. For me I despise every one of the crooks, spivs and charlatans who hung onto us like leeches in our time of trouble and it cuts deep to see them all riding off into the sunset with pockets filled with cash. I wish them no joy.
 

LJ50

Well-Known Member
From Grier's (failed) summary decree case, lack of probable cause isn't enough to make out a claim for malicious prosecution. There needs in addition to be an element of malice/bad-faith - although perhaps that may be inferred by battering on with the case well beyond where it is quite clear that there is no evidence to support it, I suppose.

That's really one of the grounds of the Crown's defence in Grier's case and why it is going to proof, I think - there may ultimately not have been the evidence to support this case, but we were acting in good faith when we brought it so there can't be a claim.

So for the other D&P two, there has been an acceptance that someone was acting in bad-faith at least to some degree, as there has been an admission of liability. We shouldn't under-estimate quite how difficult it is to bring a claim of malicious prosecution successfully - the Crown have to do something pretty bad before it can be a runner.

(In Grier's case, one of the arguments that there was bad faith is that the Crown failed to disclose evidence which was exculpatory of him to his defence team. The prime example is what was called the "Don't tell David" email. This was an email from Whyte to another party in which what was going on with Ticketus was disclosed. The email included instructions from Whyte to the other party not to pass the information about Ticketus on to Grier.)
Absolutely correct. My only watch-out to people was not to read "malicious" in the way it is generally understood. "Bad faith" is an excellent alternative choice of words.

As I said, the bungling and botching of various elements of the process would probably be enough to obtain a judgement of malicious prosecution as it shows a substantial degree of bad faith; which doesn't necessarily imply persecution in the way most of us laymen would interpret the word "malicious".
 

LJ50

Well-Known Member
If the state starts prosecuting people without reasonable cause that is a slippery slope to something resembling Russia. Who is the directing mind behind that prosecution, what are the pressures and where did they come form to make that happen.

If this can be done to two individuals adminsitring a legal process overseen by the courts, what is next? Someone who has political views that aren't acceptable to someone else? Where does this stop?

When you add in the Salmond bit this looks like political interference in the running of the justice system. This should concern everyone in Scotland. But it wont. even those on here that aren't nats are more bothered about proving the allegations and miss the wider and much more important point.
Absolutely none of what you say is untrue. None of it. Political interference in the justice system should concern everyone in Scotland.

However, you are missing the wider point being made by some; you are clearly limiting the scope of your suppositions to suggest that "the state" went after these individuals on a very personal and entirely political agenda. You're neglecting the possibility that the political interference actually lead to the case against them being fatally undermined, conducted in bad faith and conducted so incompetently that the prosecution was unable to demonstrate "reasonable cause".
 

Northhiglander

Well-Known Member
Absolutely none of what you say is untrue. None of it. Political interference in the justice system should concern everyone in Scotland.

However, you are missing the wider point being made by some; you are clearly limiting the scope of your suppositions to suggest that "the state" went after these individuals on a very personal and entirely political agenda. You're neglecting the possibility that the political interference actually lead to the case against them being fatally undermined, conducted in bad faith and conducted so incompetently that the prosecution was unable to demonstrate "reasonable cause".
I am not suggesting those individuals are innocent. I am suggesting that the evidence to convict them of anything doesn't exist as determined by the judge that ruled on the matter. How any investigation was botched or not may or may not be true. The only facts we have in front of us are these persons were charged and put to trial without there being any evidence to support that course of action.

The judge was pretty clear that case should never have been anywhere near a trial. I perfectly accept that there may well have been grounds for an investigation, that makes the behaviour of these involved even worse, if that is true they went looking for evidence to fit a pre-determined outcome. That just adds to the scandal.

There should be massive public outcry here, there should be massive pressure for an investigation into this carried out by someone for completely outside the establishment. We need to understand what happened here and how we make sure it doesn't happen again. This appears to be two unrelated cases that have been very badly handled to the point where individuals have been persecuted by the state for seemingly political reasons. I don't believe in coincidences like that.
 

Carltonblue

Well-Known Member
I hope the administrators author a book on Rangers' administration. Despite our calls for the truth far too much is unknown. These guys might be our only hope of finally getting some answers.
A special study by Private Eye would be welcome. They’re the only people I would trust to get the truth out there.
 

mart22

Well-Known Member
Absolutely correct. My only watch-out to people was not to read "malicious" in the way it is generally understood. "Bad faith" is an excellent alternative choice of words.

As I said, the bungling and botching of various elements of the process would probably be enough to obtain a judgement of malicious prosecution as it shows a substantial degree of bad faith; which doesn't necessarily imply persecution in the way most of us laymen would interpret the word "malicious".
Regarding malicious prosecution in Scotland, up to now there has never been a successful application to declare a Scottish prosecution malicious. It was thought to be impossible given the difficulty to meet the test in law for malice. The administrators are the first in Scottish law history.
The fact the lord advocate admitted to malicious prosecution shouldn't be underestimated, or have any levity added. It's a shameful milestone. The independence of Scottish law is compromised. It needs to be investigated, and the sorry state of affairs is that nobody in Scotland can be trusted to do it. The inquiry must be carried out by someone outside of Scotland.
 
Last edited:

LJ50

Well-Known Member
I am not suggesting those individuals are innocent. I am suggesting that the evidence to convict them of anything doesn't exist as determined by the judge that ruled on the matter. How any investigation was botched or not may or may not be true. The only facts we have in front of us are these persons were charged and put to trial without there being any evidence to support that course of action.

The judge was pretty clear that case should never have been anywhere near a trial. I perfectly accept that there may well have been grounds for an investigation, that makes the behaviour of these involved even worse, if that is true they went looking for evidence to fit a pre-determined outcome. That just adds to the scandal.

There should be massive public outcry here, there should be massive pressure for an investigation into this carried out by someone for completely outside the establishment. We need to understand what happened here and how we make sure it doesn't happen again. This appears to be two unrelated cases that have been very badly handled to the point where individuals have been persecuted by the state for seemingly political reasons. I don't believe in coincidences like that.
Yep. This. Sadly, its unlike ever to have happen.

I also doubt we will ever know whether they were, in fact, "persecuted". As I've said before, "malicious prosecution" and "persecution" are not necessarily one and the same.
 

sheddensbear

Well-Known Member
When are we actually going to find out who/why at HMRC set the wheels in motion at the outset of all this.

Our Club was deliberately targeted for reasons other than unpaid tax.
Nonsense. HMRC were after us immediately we went down the EBT route. Unfortunately, Murray was so arrogant, he wouldn't accept he could be wrong re EBTs. Not only did the EBT get used from 2002 to 2012, Murray poured more money into EBTs than any other UK company.
Win the case v us, and then go after everyone else. Why did Arsenal and the bheasts have EBTs then abandon them?
You probably believe Ashley targeted us because Desmond Dermott asked him.
 

RfcIbrox

Well-Known Member
From Grier's (failed) summary decree case, lack of probable cause isn't enough to make out a claim for malicious prosecution. There needs in addition to be an element of malice/bad-faith - although perhaps that may be inferred by battering on with the case well beyond where it is quite clear that there is no evidence to support it, I suppose.

That's really one of the grounds of the Crown's defence in Grier's case and why it is going to proof, I think - there may ultimately not have been the evidence to support this case, but we were acting in good faith when we brought it so there can't be a claim.

So for the other D&P two, there has been an acceptance that someone was acting in bad-faith at least to some degree, as there has been an admission of liability. We shouldn't under-estimate quite how difficult it is to bring a claim of malicious prosecution successfully - the Crown have to do something pretty bad before it can be a runner.

(In Grier's case, one of the arguments that there was bad faith is that the Crown failed to disclose evidence which was exculpatory of him to his defence team. The prime example is what was called the "Don't tell David" email. This was an email from Whyte to another party in which what was going on with Ticketus was disclosed. The email included instructions from Whyte to the other party not to pass the information about Ticketus on to Grier.)
This is the first case of malicious prosecution in Scotland’s legal history. You really don’t have to look much further than the previous LA and the astonishing sum of £20m to protect.
 

Northhiglander

Well-Known Member
Yep. This. Sadly, its unlike ever to have happen.

I also doubt we will ever know whether they were, in fact, "persecuted". As I've said before, "malicious prosecution" and "persecution" are not necessarily one and the same.
I agree we seem to be on a downward spiral in standards in public life. Nobody seems to be that bothered where we are headed. If we don't have justice system that is independent of political control we don't have a functioning democracy.
 

Hillheadbear

Goooooooooaaaaaaaaaaallllllllll
Seems to have been a prosecution based on internet rumours rather than evidence. It doesn’t look like they even had sufficient evidence to arrest them from the noises now coming from the Crown.

I don’t do criminal work these days, but I did a few cases when I started out. Years ago I dealt with a fraud case (nothing like as complex or important as the Rangers one, obviously.) I remember the reporting officer telling me that where a fraudster in an organisation is caught the first thing they do is claim everyone else was at it too, and there was some wider conspiracy at play. They do that to obscure and complicate the case.

I think Whyte was probably delighted at dragging so many people into the case with him. I think he and his lawyer were probably the only ones who should have faced charges - and if the case had been progressed in that way maybe the outcome would have been different.

In my career as an auditor, I saw a few examples of fraud. Mostly, other staff members (whether management or not) were complicit in that they either benefited from the fraud, were part of the fraud or simply accepted management assurances that what they were doing was okay. When it is at a very senior level (e.g. Enron), then the Board and senior management are often complicit. Consequently, frauds were often detected by luck rather than by investigation or when the company goes belly up and a third party comes in to pick up the pieces.

Doing Grand Jury duty here in the USA, I thought it remarkable how stupid most of the accused were. I made this comment to a senior police officer I was chatting to at the coffee machine. He simply said that the smart criminals don't get caught. I think that is particularly true for fraud. If you know what you are doing, it isn't hard to circumvent the controls. We had a couple of financial fraud cases before us and, had the accused not confessed, I think the prosecution would have had a tough job proving their case.

As an experienced audit professional and with the resources of a Big 4 behind me, we still had difficulty detecting and proving fraud. So how tough must it be for the police and the Crown Office who have nothing like the experience or the resources that we had.

If Whyte and the others were, in fact, intent on defrauding Rangers, they were stupid in choosing such a high profile target. However, they were clearly not stupid enough to leave sufficient evidence for a successful prosecution.
 
Last edited:

St Andrews Bear

Well-Known Member
The arrogance and hubris drips form this post. You have a decent point somewhere in that statement but the way you turn your nose up against anyone not in your circle makes you look like someone most people would be happy to see leave.
Where is the arrogance and hubris? All I see is an honest and frank view of his and our country’s situation
 
Top