Rangers: The malicious prosecution of club's administrators must be investigated thoroughly – Murdo Fraser

Aspley1 Ger

Well-Known Member
He could only do it because of Murray and his obsession with EBTs.
No EBTs=no Whyte=no Administration and Green and Ashley would have been powerless.
Whilst what you say is true EBTs were legal and it was retrospective legislation that changed position. Why were Rangers chosen from numerous football clubs and numerous corporates to be test case. It is also worth remembering that it was not the tax experts amongst law Lords who saw a problem but accountants who viewed substance over form. A change from tax law where form was previously the law. Tax loopholes worked on badly worded legislation where what law said and what was meant differed.
 

Disco Deejay

Well-Known Member
Complex fraud trials like Whyte's takeover are notoriously difficult to obtain a conviction. Mainly because they are so complicated and time consuming that the actions of the accused mostly fly over the head of your average jury member and they get bored very quickly.

The most common phrase heard in a Jury Room at the end of each day would normally be "does anybody have a clue what that was all about?"

In order to combat this, the Prosecutor has to simplify evidence to a level that the jury will both understand and retain an interest.

In Whyte's case, that did not happen and the direction taken by the Crown was astonishing.

Whyte bought the club for £1, with a condition that he paid off the debt to Lloyds, which was circa £17m. If he didn't pay off the debt to Lloyd's, he didn't get the club, it was that simple. Therein lay the problem. Whyte barely had a pot to piss in and certainly didn't have £17m lying around, so he had to find a way of obtaining the £17m.

Enter Ticketus. Whyte approaches them and they agree to purchase 3 years worth of Season Tickets for just under £20m IIRC. The problem being that Whyte can't sell them the Season Ticket rights until he owns Rangers and he can't own Rangers until he sells the Season Ticket rights, so he's stuck in a Catch 22 position, unable to carry out either part of the transaction until the other part happened.

I can't disclose my sources and have to be careful what I say, but it is my information that certain documentation was 'amended' in order to to allow both transactions to take place. (Most will recall that Ticketus lost out on every penny that they gave Whyte, due to their failure to do proper due diligence).

That fact in its own should have been enough to get a conviction for the fraudulent takeover of our club, yet it is my belief that it was not even brought up at trial. Probably as a result of incorrect procedure being used with Warrants to obtain evidence.

The whole trial was a shambles, due to best evidence that couldn't be led, irrelevant evidence that was led (just to get a few well known faces into the witness box) and unnecessarily over complicating other evidence led.
 

LOL 133

Well-Known Member
Equally, an incestigation (pun intended) as to how Celtc fans were allowed to populate the jury on the criminal charges against Shyte.

Also an investigation into Police Scotland and the PF office as to how so many other charges failed to be brought.
To get justice they decided no Rangers fans were allowed on the jury. No one considered it inappropriate to have Celtic fans on the jury.

You've got to laugh when the Scottish legal system is held up as an example of good practice, professionalism and justice. Its been corrupted beyond repair by the Oirish diaspora. Or should that be dias-pira?
 

chilebear

Well-Known Member
Complex fraud trials like Whyte's takeover are notoriously difficult to obtain a conviction. Mainly because they are so complicated and time consuming that the actions of the accused mostly fly over the head of your average jury member and they get bored very quickly.

The most common phrase heard in a Jury Room at the end of each day would normally be "does anybody have a clue what that was all about?"

In order to combat this, the Prosecutor has to simplify evidence to a level that the jury will both understand and retain an interest.

In Whyte's case, that did not happen and the direction taken by the Crown was astonishing.

Whyte bought the club for £1, with a condition that he paid off the debt to Lloyds, which was circa £17m. If he didn't pay off the debt to Lloyd's, he didn't get the club, it was that simple. Therein lay the problem. Whyte barely had a pot to piss in and certainly didn't have £17m lying around, so he had to find a way of obtaining the £17m.

Enter Ticketus. Whyte approaches them and they agree to purchase 3 years worth of Season Tickets for just under £20m IIRC. The problem being that Whyte can't sell them the Season Ticket rights until he owns Rangers and he can't own Rangers until he sells the Season Ticket rights, so he's stuck in a Catch 22 position, unable to carry out either part of the transaction until the other part happened.

I can't disclose my sources and have to be careful what I say, but it is my information that certain documentation was 'amended' in order to to allow both transactions to take place. (Most will recall that Ticketus lost out on every penny that they gave Whyte, due to their failure to do proper due diligence).

That fact in its own should have been enough to get a conviction for the fraudulent takeover of our club, yet it is my belief that it was not even brought up at trial. Probably as a result of incorrect procedure being used with Warrants to obtain evidence.

The whole trial was a shambles, due to best evidence that couldn't be led, irrelevant evidence that was led (just to get a few well known faces into the witness box) and unnecessarily over complicating other evidence led.
Brilliant post mate
 

Disco Deejay

Well-Known Member
To get justice they decided no Rangers fans were allowed on the jury. No one considered it inappropriate to have Celtic fans on the jury.

You've got to laugh when the Scottish legal system is held up as an example of good practice, professionalism and justice. Its been corrupted beyond repair by the Oirish diaspora. Or should that be dias-pira?
Sorry, but the fact that no Rangers fans were allowed on the jury is a FF conspiracy theory.

The names of 30 potential jurors are put into a glass bowl and the Clerk of the Court draws out 15 names in public. Each party is allowed to object to 4 of the jurors drawn and don't need to give a reason.

Crazy as it seems, that hypothetically gave Whyte's defence agent the legal power to object to Billy King, an intelligent looking man in his 50's dressed in a suit being selected, but have no objections to Bernadette Theresa McGlinchey, a thick as mince 18 y/o sitting playing with her rosary beads, whilst reading the Celtic View.

As I mentioned in a previous post, it is often the case that in complex trials, the less intelligent the jurors, the less chance the Crown have of gaining a conviction, as the evidence goes over their head and/or they get bored. Thus the defence can use juror objections to effectively strengthen their position.
 

JayDee

Well-Known Member
Complex fraud trials like Whyte's takeover are notoriously difficult to obtain a conviction. Mainly because they are so complicated and time consuming that the actions of the accused mostly fly over the head of your average jury member and they get bored very quickly.

The most common phrase heard in a Jury Room at the end of each day would normally be "does anybody have a clue what that was all about?"

In order to combat this, the Prosecutor has to simplify evidence to a level that the jury will both understand and retain an interest.

In Whyte's case, that did not happen and the direction taken by the Crown was astonishing.

Whyte bought the club for £1, with a condition that he paid off the debt to Lloyds, which was circa £17m. If he didn't pay off the debt to Lloyd's, he didn't get the club, it was that simple. Therein lay the problem. Whyte barely had a pot to piss in and certainly didn't have £17m lying around, so he had to find a way of obtaining the £17m.

Enter Ticketus. Whyte approaches them and they agree to purchase 3 years worth of Season Tickets for just under £20m IIRC. The problem being that Whyte can't sell them the Season Ticket rights until he owns Rangers and he can't own Rangers until he sells the Season Ticket rights, so he's stuck in a Catch 22 position, unable to carry out either part of the transaction until the other part happened.

I can't disclose my sources and have to be careful what I say, but it is my information that certain documentation was 'amended' in order to to allow both transactions to take place. (Most will recall that Ticketus lost out on every penny that they gave Whyte, due to their failure to do proper due diligence).

That fact in its own should have been enough to get a conviction for the fraudulent takeover of our club, yet it is my belief that it was not even brought up at trial. Probably as a result of incorrect procedure being used with Warrants to obtain evidence.

The whole trial was a shambles, due to best evidence that couldn't be led, irrelevant evidence that was led (just to get a few well known faces into the witness box) and unnecessarily over complicating other evidence led.
A judge in a civil case in London indicated that how Whyte obtained the Ticketus money was illicit (I seem to recall that this involved a declaration about never having been disqualified as company director though I'm not totally sure). I don't know if this was covered in the criminal trial up here.
 
change consent
Top