Conduct of Sir David Murray, Craig Whyte and Rangers directors examined

[Steve1872 4]

THE conduct of Sir David Murray and the Rangers board in the three years before its administration is being examined by the Governmentâ??s insolvency investigators.

 

The Insolvency Serviceâ??s Investigations & Enforcement Directorate are also looking at the role played by Craig Whyte, who bought the club from Sir David for £1 in May 2011.

 

Other key figures under the microscope reportedly include Ibrox legend John Greig, a director from 2003, former chief executive Martin Bain and chairman Alistair Johnston.

 

An Insolvency Service spokeswoman said: â??We can confirm that, since Rangers has entered a form of insolvency, an insolvency practitioner (IP) is required to report on the conduct of the directors. The IP has reported and so the Investigations & Enforcement Directorate are considering the matter.â?

 

It is understood that administrators Duff & Phelps, who took control of the club on February 14, completed the report.

 

Shortly before Rangers went into administration Mr Johnston called on the Insolvency Service to investigate Mr Whyteâ??s takeover, but the Government agency could not confirm if it was acting upon this request.

 

The regulators can take action against company directors for a range of offences, including failure to keep proper accounting records or failure to pay tax. It has the power to disqualify directors for up to 15 years.

 

The report is likely to be confidential.

http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/sfl-division-three/conduct-of-sir-david-murray-craig-whyte-and-rangers-directors-examined-1-2595313

[Bluedell 5,356]

Whyte should get done for illegal trading, at least.

 

Not sure that they will get Murray on anything.

[Crimson Dynamo 128]

Whyte should get done for illegal trading, at least.

 

Not sure that they will get Murray on anything.

 

He admitted to fraud last week during his BBC interview. When he said he knew administration/ liquidation was virtually unavoidable when he bought Rangers but he still used the money from Ticketus to finance it

[forlanssister 3,060]

As much as I want to see Whyte doing porridge I don't hold out much hope of that actually happening.

 

At best we'll probably see Whyte voluntarily agree to not being able to seve as a director of a UK company again.

[frost 0]

Strange that the IS would investigate whilst an alleged criminal investigation is taking place.

[stewarty 1,878]

Strange that the IS would investigate whilst an alleged criminal investigation is taking place.

 

There are statutory obligations that have to be met - e.g. the report into Directors has to be carried out within specifc time periods.

[frost 0]

That may be English reading and statute, here in Scotland where Police are agents of the Crown Office, nothing interferes with Crown Office business.

 

We wouldn't want to see two different opinions from two different bodies would we, if the Police uncover criminal activity the Crown Office will decide if it is in the public interest to prosecute, no one else will make that decision.

[stewarty 1,878]

http://www.bis.gov.uk/insolvency/Companies/insolvent-companies/how-are-company-directors-investigated

 

Note – the following information refers to investigations into companies which have entered into formal insolvency proceedings including administration, administrative receivership, voluntary and compulsory liquidation in England, Wales and Scotland. For information on investigations into companies that are actively trading, or which have ceased trading without entering into insolvency proceedings using powers under the Companies Acts see our pages on Company Investigations .

Investigations can be made into the behaviour of company directors, those acting as company directors and also shadow directors. On completion of an investigation the investigator will submit a full report to an independent authorising section. That section acts on behalf of the Secretary of State in considering whether the case for disqualification has been made out, and whether it is in the public interest to apply to the court for a disqualification order. This section then can gives an authorisation to proceed in appropriate cases.

Where authorisation has been given to proceed, the case is referred to the Defendant Liaison Team who write to the directors to advise them of the intended disqualification action, and to give them the opportunity to offer a disqualification undertaking. This has the same effect as a disqualification order made by the court. If the director does not offer an undertaking or does not produce new evidence sufficient to withdraw the action, court proceedings are issued to seek a Disqualification order under the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 (CDDA).

Complaints about a company that is in administration, administrative receivership and voluntary liquidation, may be considered by Company Investigations officials. However concerns should first be raised with the insolvency practitioner responsible for the insolvency as they may be best placed to deal with the issue. Insolvency practitioners dealing with administrations, administrative receiverships and voluntary liquidations are required to report any unfit conduct to the Secretary of State who then decides whether to investigate further with a view to disqualification.

Complaints against companies in compulsory liquidation are dealt with by the official receiver who will report any matters of concern to the Secretary of State.

Please note – the CDDA (1986) does not apply where a company voluntary arrangement has been agreed with creditors.

 

I'd imagine the results of either investigation will inform the other. I may be wrong though.

[frost 0]

You would be wrong, Crown Office take precedent, it is also a criminal offence to interfere with or hinder a Crown Office investigation, as I said this is Scotland.

[stewarty 1,878]

You would be wrong, Crown Office take precedent, it is also a criminal offence to interfere with or hinder a Crown Office investigation, as I said this is Scotland.

 

I'd imagine the tests for criminality and that of unfit conduct of a director would be different. I don't doubt the precendence of the Crown Office/Police but am not sure why both could not be progressed at the same time with the sharing of information/evidence gathered.